__________________________________________________________________
Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 14: Simony-Tournon
Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916)
Print Basis: 1907-1913
Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by
permission
CCEL Subjects: All; Reference
LC Call no: BX841.C286
LC Subjects:
Christian Denominations
Roman Catholic Church
Dictionaries. Encyclopedias
__________________________________________________________________
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE
ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE,
DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
EDITED BY
CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D.
EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D.
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J.
ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS
IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES
VOLUME 14
Simony to Tournon
New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY
Imprimatur
JOHN M. FARLEY
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________
Simony
Simony
(From Simon Magus; Acts, viii, 18-24)
Simony is usually defined "a deliberate intention of buying or
selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of
annexed unto spirituals". While, this definition only speaks of
purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things
is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of
the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to
a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no.
1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of
one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other.
The various temporal advantages which may be offered for a
spiritual favour are, after Gregory the Great, usually divided
in three classes. These are: (1) the munus a manu (material
advantage), which comprises money, all movable and immovable
property, and all rights appreciable in pecuniary value; (2) the
munus a lingua (oral advantage) which includes oral
commendation, public expressions of approval, moral support in
high places; (3) the munus ab obsequio (homage) which consists
in subserviency, the rendering of undue services, etc.
The spiritual object includes whatever is conducive to the
eternal welfare of the soul, i.e. all supernatural things:
sanctifying grace, the sacraments, sacramentals, etc. While
according to the natural and Divine laws the term simony is
applicable only to the exchange of supernatural treasures for
temporal advantages, its meaning has been further extended
through ecclesiastical legislation. In order to preclude all
danger of simony the Church has forbidden certain dealings which
did not fall under Divine prohibition. It is thus unlawful to
exchange ecclesiastical benefices by private authority, to
accept any payment whatever for holy oils, to sell blessed
rosaries or crucifixes. Such objects lose, if sold, all the
indulgences previously attached to them (S. Cong. Of Indulg., 12
July, 1847). Simony of ecclesiastical law is, of course a
variable element, since the prohibitions of the Church may be
abrogated or fall into disuse. Simony whether it be of
ecclesiastical or Divine law, may be divided into mental,
conventional, and real (simonia mentalis, conventionalis, et
realis). In mental simony there is lacking the outward
manifestation, or, according to others, the approval on the part
of the person to whom a proposal is made. In conventional simony
an expressed or tacit agreement is entered upon. It is
subdivided into merely conventional, when neither party has
fulfilled any of the terms of the agreement, and mixed
conventional, when one of the parties has at least partly
complied with the assumed obligations. To the latter subdivision
may be referred what has been aptly termed "confidential
simony", in which an ecclesiastical benefice is procured for a
certain person with the understanding that later he will either
resign in favour of the one through whom he obtained the
position or divide with him the revenues. Simony is called real
when the stipulations of the mutual agreement have been either
partly or completely carried out by both parties.
To estimate accurately the gravity of simony, which some
medieval ecclesiastical writers denounced as the most abominable
of crimes, a distinction must be made between the violations of
the Divine law, and the dealings contrary to ecclesiastical
legislation. Any transgression of the law of God in this matter
is, objectively considered, grievous in every instance (mortalis
ex toto genere suo). For this kind of simony places on a par
things supernatural and things natural, things eternal and
things temporal, and constitutes a sacrilegious depreciation of
Divine treasures. The sin can become venial only through the
absence of the subjective dispositions required for the
commission of a grievous offense. The merely ecclesiastical
prohibitions, however, do not all and under all circumstances
impose a grave obligation. The presumption is that the church
authority, which, in this connection, sometimes prohibits
actions in themselves indifferent, did not intend the law to be
grievously binding in minor details. As he who preaches the
gospel "should live by the gospel" (I Cor., ix, 14) but should
also avoid even the appearance of receiving temporal payment for
spiritual services, difficulties may arise concerning the
propriety or sinfulness of remuneration in certain
circumstances. The ecclesiastic may certainly receive what is
offered to him on the occasion of spiritual ministrations, but
he cannot accept any payment for the same. The celebration of
Mass for money would, consequently, be sinful; but it is
perfectly legitimate to accept a stipend offered on such
occasion for the support of the celebrant. The amount of the
stipend, varying for different times and countries, is usually
fixed by ecclesiastical authority (SEE STIPEND). It is allowed
to accept it even should the priest be otherwise well-to-do; for
he has a right to live from the altar and should avoid becoming
obnoxious to other members of the gy. It is simoniacal to accept
payment for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, e.g.,
the granting of dispensations; but there is nothing improper in
demanding from the applicants for matrimonial dispensations a
contribution intended partly as a chancery fee and partly as a
salutary fine calculated to prevent the too frequent recurrence
of such requests. It is likewise simony to accept temporal
compensation for admission into a religious order; but
contributions made by candidates to defray the expenses of their
novitiate as well as the dowry required by some female orders
are not included in this prohibition.
In regard to the parish clergy, the poorer the church, the more
urgent is the obligation incumbent upon the faithful to support
them. In the fulfilment of this duty local law and custom ought
to be observed. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore has
framed the following decrees for the United States: (1) The
priest may accept what is freely offered after the
administration of baptism or matrimony, but should refrain from
asking anything (no. 221). (2) The confessor is never allowed to
apply to his own use pecuniary penances, nor may he ask or
accept anything from the penitent in compensation of his
services. Even voluntary gifts must be refused, and the offering
of Mass stipends in the sacred tribunal cannot be permitted (no.
289). (3) The poor who cannot be buried at their own expense
should receive free burial (no. 393). The Second and Third
action of a compulsory contribution at the church entrance from
the faithful who wish to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days
(Conc. Plen. Balt. II, no 397; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, no 288).
As this practice continue din existence in many churches until
very recently, a circular letter addressed 29 Sept., 1911, by
the Apostolic Delegate to the archbishops and bishops of the
United States, again condemns the custom and requests the
ordinaries to suppress it wherever found in existence.
To uproot the evil of simony so prevalent during the Middle
Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its
perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections
invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however,
by Pope Pius X (Constitution "Vacante Sede", 25 Dec., 1904, tit.
II, cap. Vi, in "Canoniste Contemp.", XXXII, 1909, 291). The
collation of a benefice is void if, in obtaining it, the
appointee either committed simony himself, or at least tacitly
approved of its commission by a third party. Should he have
taken possession, he is bound to resign and restore all the
revenues received during his tenure. Excommunication simply
reserved to the Apostolic See is pronounced in the Constitution
"Apostolicae Sedis" (12 Oct., 1869): (1) against persons guilty
of real simony in any benefices and against their accomplices;
(2) against any persons, whatsoever their dignity, guilty of
confidential simony in any benefices; (3) against such as are
guilty of simony by purchasing or selling admission into a
religious order; (4) against all persons inferior to the
bishops, who derive gain (quaestum facientes) from indulgences
and other spiritual graces; (5) against those who, collecting
stipends for Masses, realize a profit on them by having the
Masses celebrated in places where smaller stipends are usually
given. The last-mentioned provision was supplemented by
subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council.
The Decree "Vigilanti" (25 May, 1893) forbade the practice
indulged in by some booksellers of receiving stipends and
offering exclusively books and subscriptions to periodicals to
the celebrant of the Masses. The Decree "Ut Debita" (11 May,
1904) condemned the arrangements according to which the
guardians of shrines sometimes devoted the offerings originally
intended for Masses partly to other pious purposes. The
offenders against the two decrees just mentioned incur
suspension ipso facto from their functions if they are in sacred
orders; inability to receive higher orders if they are clerics
inferior to the priests; excommunication of pronounced sentence
(latae sententiae) if they belong to the laity.
N.A. WEBER
Pope St. Simplicius
Pope St. Simplicius
Reigned 468-483; date of birth unknown; died 10 March, 483.
According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 249)
Simplicius was the son of a citizen of Tivoli named Castinus;
and after the death of Pope Hilarius in 468 was elected to
succeed the latter. The elevation of the new pope was not
attended with any difficulties. During his pontificate the
Western Empire came to an end. Since the murder of Valentinian
III (455) there had been a rapid succession of insignificant
emperors in the Western Roman Empire, who were constantly
threatened by war and revolution. Following other German tribes
the Heruli entered Italy, and their ruler Odoacer put an end to
the Western Empire by deposing the last emperor, Romulus
Augustulus, and assuming himself the title of King of Italy.
Although an Arian, Odoacer treated the Catholic Church with much
respect; he also retained the greater part of the former
administrative organization, so that the change produced no
great differences at Rome. During the Monophysite controversy,
that was still carried on in the Eastern Empire, Simplicius
vigorously defended the independence of the Church against the
Caesaropapism of the Byzantine rulers and the authority of the
Apostolic See in questions of faith. The twenty-eighth canon of
the Council of Chalcedon (451) granted the See of Constantinople
the same privileges of honour that were enjoyed by the Bishop of
Old Rome, although the primacy and the highest rank of honour
were due to the latter. The papal legates protested against this
elevation of the Byzantine Patriarch, and Pope Leo confirmed
only the dogmatic decrees of the council. However, the Patriarch
of Constantinople sought to bring the canon into force, and the
Emperor Leo II desired to obtain its confirmation by Simplicius.
The latter, however, rejected the request of the emperor and
opposed the carrying out of the canon, that moreover limited the
rights of the old Oriental patriarchates.
The rebellion of Basiliscus, who in 476 drove the Emperor Zeno
into exile and seized the Byzantine throne, intensified the
Monophysite dispute. Basiliscus looked for support to the
Monophysites, and he granted permission to the deposed
Monophysite patriarchs, Timotheus Ailurus of Alexandria and
Peter Fullo of Antioch, to return to their sees. At the same
time he issued a religious edict (Enkyklikon) addressed to
Ailurus, which commanded that only the first three ecumenical
synods were to be accepted, and rejected the Synod of Chalcedon
and the Letter of Pope Leo. All bishops were to sign the edict.
The Bishop of Constantinople, Acacius (from 471), wavered and
was about to proclaim this edict. But the firm stand taken by
the populace, influenced by the monks who were rigidly Catholic
in their opinions, moved the bishop to oppose the emperor and to
defend the threatened faith. The abbots and priests of
Constantinople united with Pope Simplicius, who made every
effort to maintain the Catholic dogma and the definitions of the
Council of Chalcedon. The pope exhorted to loyal adherence to
the true faith in letters to Acacius, to the priests and abbots,
as welI as to the usurper Basiliscus himself. In a letter to
Basiliscus of 10 Jan., 476, Simplicius says of the See of Peter
at Rome: "This same norm of Apostolic doctrine is firmly
maintained by his (Peter's) successors, of him to whom the Lord
entrusted the care of the entire flock of sheep, to whom He
promised not to leave him until the end of time" (Thiel, "Rom.
Pont.", 182). In the same way he took up with the emperor the
cause of the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Timotheus
Salophakiolus, who had been superseded by Ailurus. When the
Emperor Zeno in 477 drove away the usurper and again gained the
supremacy, he sent the pope a completely Catholic confession of
faith, whereupon Simplicius (9 Oct., 477) congratulated him on
his restoration to power and exhorted him to ascribe the victory
to God, who wished in this way to restore liberty to the Church.
Zeno recalled the edicts of Basiliscus, banished Peter Fullo
from Antioch, and reinstated Timotheus Salophakiolus at
Alexandria. He did not disturb Ailurus on account of the
latter's great age, and as matter of fact the latter soon died.
The Monophysites of Alexandria now put forward Peter Mongus, the
former archdeacon of Ailurus, as his successor. Urged by the
pope and the Eastern Catholics, Zeno commanded the banishment of
Peter Mongus, but the latter was able to hide in Alexandria, and
fear of the Monophysites prevented the use of force. In a moment
of weakness Salophakiolus himself had permitted the placing of
the name of the Monophysite patriarch Dioscurus in the diptychs
to be read at the church services. On 13 March, 478, Simplicius
wrote to Acacius of Constantinople that Salophakiolus should be
urged to wipe out the disgrace that he had brought upon himself.
The latter sent legates and letters to Rome to give satisfaction
to the pope. At the request of Acacius, who was still active
against the Monophysites, the pope condemned by name the
heretics Mongus, Fullo, Paul of Epheseus, and John of Apamea,
and delegated the Patriarch of Constantinople to be in this his
representative. When the Monophysites at Antioch raised a revolt
in 497 against the patriarch Stephen II, and killed him, Acacius
consecrated Stephen III, and afterwards Kalendion as Stephen's
successors. Simplicius made an energetic demand upon the emperor
to punish the murderers of the patriarch, and also reproved
Acacius for exceeding his competence in performing this
consecration; at the same time, though, the pope granted him the
necessary dispensation. After the death of Salophakiolus, the
Monophysites of Alexandria again elected Peter Mongus patriarch,
while the Catholics chose Johannes Talaia. Both Acacius and the
emperor, whom he influenced, were opposed to Talaia, and sided
with Mongus. Mongus went to Constantinople to advance his cause.
Acacius and he agreed upon a formula of union between the
Catholics and the Monophysites that was approved by the Emperor
Zeno in 482 (Henotikon). Talaia had sent ambassadors to Pope
Simplicius to notify the pope of his election. However, at the
same time, the pope received a letter from the emperor in which
Talaia was accused of perjury and bribery and a demand was made
for the recognition of Mongus. Simplicius, therefore, delayed to
recognize Talaia, but protested energetically against the
elevation of Mongus to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Acacius,
however, maintained his alliance with Mongus and sought to
prevail upon the Eastern bishops to enter into Church communion
with him. For a long time Acacius sent no information of any
kind to the pope, so that the latter in a letter blamed him
severely for this. When finally Talaia came to Rome in 483
Simplicius was already dead.
Simplicius exercised a zealous pastoral care in western Europe
also, notwithstanding the trying circumstances of the Church
during the disorders of the Migrations. He issued decisions in
ecclesiastical questions, appointed Bishop Zeno of Seville papal
vicar in Spain, so that the prerogatives of the papal see could
be exercised in the country itself for the benefit of the
ecclesiastical administration. When Bishop John of Ravenna in
482 claimed Mutina as a suffragan diocese of his metropolitan
see, and without more ado consecrated Bishop George for this
diocese, Simplicius vigorously opposed him and defended the
rights of the papal see. Simplicius established four new
churches in Rome itself. A large hall built in the form of a
rotunda on the Caelian Hill was turned into a church and
dedicated to St. Stephen; the main part of this building still
exists as the Church of San Stefano Rotondo. A fine hall near
the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore was given to the Roman Church
and turned by Simplicius into a church dedicated to St. Andrew
by the addition of an apse adorned with mosaics; it is no longer
in existence (cf. de Rossi, "Bull. di archeol. crist.", 1871,
1-64). The pope built a church dedicated to the first martyr,
St. Stephen, behind the memorial church of San Lorenzo in Agro
Verano; this church is no longer standing. He had a fourth
church built in the city in honour of St. Balbina, "juxta
palatium Licinianum", where her grave was; this church still
remains. In order to make sure of the regular holding of church
services, of the administration of baptism, and of the
discipline of penance in the great churches of the catacombs
outside the city walls, namely the church of St. Peter (in the
Vatican), of St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis, and of St. Lawrence
on the Via Tiburtina, Simplicius ordained that the clergy of
three designated sections of the city should, in an established
order, have charge of the religious functions at these churches
of the catacombs. Simplicius was buried in St. Peter's on the
Vatican. The "Liber Pontificalis" gives 2 March as the day of
burial (VI non.); probably 10 March (VI id.) should be read.
After his death King Odoacer desired to influence the filling of
the papal see. The prefect of the city, Basilius, asserted that
before death Pope Simplicius had begged to issue the order that
no one should be consecrated Roman bishop without his consent
(cf. concerning the regulation Thiel, "Epist. Rom. Pont.",
686-88). The Roman clergy opposed this edict that limited their
right of election. They maintained the force of the edict,
issued by the Emperor Honorius at the instance of Pope Boniface
I, that only that person should be regarded as the rightful
Bishop of Rome who was elected according to canonical form with
Divine approval and universal consent. Simplicius was venerated
as a saint; his feast is on 2 or 3 March.
Liber pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 249-251; JAFFE, Regesta
Pont. Rom., 2nd ed., I, 77-80; THIEL, Epist. Rom. Pontif., I
(Brunswick, 1868), 174 sq.; LIBERATUS, Breviar. Causae Nestor.,
xvi sq.; EVAGRIUS, Hist. eccl., III, 4 sq.; HERGENROeTHER,
Photius, I, 111-22; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Paepste, I,
153 sq., 324 sq.; LANGEN, Geschichte der roemischen Kirche, II
(Bonn, 1885), 126 sqq.; WURM, Die Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902).
J.P. KIRSCH
Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrice
Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrice
Martyrs at Rome during the Diocletian persecution (302 or 303).
The brothers Simplicius and Faustinus were cruelly tortured on
account of their Christian faith, beaten with clubs, and finally
beheaded; their bodies were thrown into the Tiber. According to
another version of the legend a stone was tied to them and they
were drowned. Their sister Beatrice had the bodies drawn out of
the water and buried. Then for seven months she lived with a
pious matron named Lucina, and with her aid Beatrice succoured
the persecuted Christians by day and night. Finally she was
discovered and arrested. Her accuser was her neighbor Lucretius
who desired to obtain possession of her lands. She courageously
asserted before the judge that she would never sacrifice to
demons, because she was a Christian. As punishment, she was
strangled in prison. Her friend Lucina buried her by her
brothers in the cemetery ad Ursum Pileatum on the road to Porto.
Soon after this Divine punishment overtook the accuser
Lucretius. When Lucretius at a feast was making merry over the
folly of the martyrs, an infant who had been brought to the
entertainment by his mother, cried out, "Thou hast committed
murder and hast taken unjust possession of land. Thou art a
slave of the devil". And the devil at once took possession of
him and tortured him three hours and drew him down into the
bottomless pit. The terror of those present was so great that
they became Christians. This is the story of the legend.
Trustworthy Acts concerning the history of the two brothers and
sister are no longer in existence. Pope Leo II (683-683)
translated their relics to a church which he had built at Rome
in honour of St. Paul. Later the greater part of the relics of
the martyrs were taken to the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore.
St. Simplicius is represented with a pennant, on the shield of
which are three lilies called the crest of Simplicius; the
lilies are a symbol of purity of heart. St. Beatrice has a cord
in her hand, because she was strangled. The feast of the three
saints is on 29 July.
Acta SS., July, VII, 34-37; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina
(Brussels, 1898-1900), 1127-28.
KLEMENS LOFFLER
Richard Simpson
Richard Simpson
Born 1820; died near Rome, 5 April, 1876. He was educated at
Oriel College, Oxford, and took his B. A. degree, 9 February,
1843. Being ordained an Anglican clergyman, he was appointed
vicar of Mitcham in Surrey, but resigned this in 1845 to become
a Catholic. After some years spent on the continent, during
which time he became remarkably proficient as a linguist, he
returned to England and became editor of "The Rambler". When
this ceased in 1862 he, with Sir John Acton, began the "Home and
Foreign Review", which was opposed by ecclesiastical authority
as unsound and was discontinued in 1864. Afterwards Simpson
devoted himself to the study of Shakespeare and to music. His
works are: "Invocation of Saints proved from the Bible alone"
(1849); "The Lady Falkland: her life" (1861); "Edmund Campion"
(1867), the most valuable of his works; "Introduction to the
Philosophy of Shakespeare's Sonnets" (1868); "The School of
Shakespeare" (1872); and "Sonnets of Shakespeare selected from a
complete setting, and miscellaneous songs" (1878). Though he
remained a practical Catholic his opinions were very liberal and
he assisted Mr. Gladstone in writing his pamphlet on
"Vaticanism". His papers in "The Rambler" on the English martyrs
deserve attention.
COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng.
Cath., s. v.; WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (London,
1897); GASQUET, Lord Acton and His Circle (London, 1906).
EDWIN BURTON
Sin
Sin
The subject is treated under these heads:
I. Nature of sin
II. Division
III. Mortal Sin
IV. Venial Sin
V. Permission and Remedies
VI. The Sense of Sin
I. NATURE OF SIN
Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to
determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral
evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a
privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order
a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone
is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly
good. Everything else possesses but a limited being, and, in so
far as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due
proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order
and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in
perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and
by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because
of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of
form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition
they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the
perfection they have: "for evil, in a large sense, may be
described as the sum of opposition, which experience shows to
exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals;
whence arises, among human beings at least, the suffering in
which life abounds" (see EVIL).
According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil
is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not
evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater
good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings.
Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some
natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject,
as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent
beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to
deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of
conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the
morality of a human act consists in its agreement or
non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is
good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this
agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature,
knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral
evil results.
Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De
malo", 8:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the
Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a
sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law,
which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts
must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Rom. 14:23).
In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance
of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas,
I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends
here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately
electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the
dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly
intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is
physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power
over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular
good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e.
universal good (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God,
the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act
as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:84:2;
"De malo", 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its
cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in
place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true
last end.
In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral
law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all
moral good (St. Thomas, "De malo", 2:9; I-II:73:2). There is a
twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its
opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light;
another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which
it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely
destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for
health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a
moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to
evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as
such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of
the will, which is good. The sinner's intention terminates at
some object in which there is a participation of God's goodness,
and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of
due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is
accepted in as much as the sinner's desire tends to an object in
which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a
pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude.
From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that
it is voluntary, its imputability.
II. DIVISION OF SIN
As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original
or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for
the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and
source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free
personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of
commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act
contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a
failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however,
requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling
of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its
fulfillment (I-II:72:5). As regards their malice, sins are
distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and
malice; as regards the activities involved, into sins of
thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); as regards their
gravity, into mortal and venial. This last named division is
indeed the most important of all and it calls for special
treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful
to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or
in general usage.
Material and Formal Sin
This distinction is based upon the difference between the
objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the
subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action
which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is
not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin;
whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely
transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether
such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who
acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while
believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin
would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it
belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.
Internal Sins
That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by
the inner activity of the mind apart from any external
manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou
shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and
pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all
filthiness" (Matt. 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess.
XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed,
makes special mention of those that are most secret and that
violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that
they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more
dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of
internal sin are usually distinguished:
+ delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought
or imagination even without desiring it;
+ gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already
committed; and
+ desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.
An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate
intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice,
mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view. An
inefficacious desire is one that carries a condition, in such a
way that the will is prepared to perform the action in case the
condition were verified. When the condition is such as to
eliminate all sinfulness from the action, the desire involves no
sin: e.g. I would gladly eat meat on Friday, if I had a
dispensation; and in general this is the case whenever the
action is forbidden by positive law only. When the action is
contrary to natural law and yet is permissible in given
circumstances or in a particular state of life, the desire, if
it include those circumstances or that state as conditions, is
not in itself sinful: e.g. I would kill so-and-so if I had to do
it in self-defence. Usually, however, such desires are dangerous
and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the
condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the
desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action
is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot
without committing sin, have the desire -- I would blaspheme God
if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and
therefore does not affect the desire itself. The pleasure taken
in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally
speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which
is thought of. Much, however, depends on the motive for which
one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may
experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime,
in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes,
determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is
often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course
where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or
action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his
evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given.
The Capital Sins or Vices
According to St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice is that
which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for
it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are
said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not
then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but
rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins. These are
enumerated by St. Thomas (I-II:84:4) as vainglory (pride),
avarice, gluttony, lust, sloth, envy, anger. St. Bonaventure
(Brevil., III, ix) gives the same enumeration. Earlier writers
had distinguished eight capital sins: so St. Cyprian (De mort.,
iv); Cassian (De instit. caenob., v, coll. 5, de octo
principalibus vitiis); Columbanus ("Instr. de octo vitiis
princip." in "Bibl. max. vet. patr.", XII, 23); Alcuin (De
virtut. et vitiis, xxvii sqq.). The number seven, however, had
been given by St. Gregory the Great (Lib. mor. in Job. XXXI,
xvii), and it was retained by the foremost theologians of the
Middle Ages.
It is to be noted that "sin" is not predicated univocally of all
kinds of sin. "The division of sin into venial and mortal is not
a division of genus into species which participate equally the
nature of the genus, but the division of an analogue into things
of which it is predicated primarily and secondarily" (St.
Thomas, I-II:138:1, ad 1um). "Sin is not predicated univocally
of all kinds of sin, but primarily of actual mortal sin ... and
therefore it is not necessary that the definition of sin in
general should be verified except in that sin in which the
nature of the genus is found perfectly. The definition of sin
may be verified in other sins in a certain sense" (St. Thomas,
II, d. 33, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um). Actual sin primarily consists in
a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act
passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of
grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has
been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin,
macula peccati. reatus culpae (I-II:87:6).
The division of sin into original and actual, mortal and venial,
is not a division of genus into species because sin has not the
same signification when applied to original and personal sin,
mortal and venial. Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true
last end; venial sin only impedes us in its attainment. Actual
personal sin is voluntary by a proper act of the will. Original
sin is voluntary not by a personal voluntary act of ours, but by
an act of the will of Adam. Original and actual sin are
distinguished by the manner in which they are voluntary (ex
parte actus); mortal and venial sin by the way in which they
affect our relation to God (ex parte deordinationis). Since a
voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, it is
impossible that sin should be a generic term in respect to
original and actual, mortal and venial sin. The true nature of
sin is found perfectly only in a personal mortal sin, in other
sins imperfectly, so that sin is predicated primarily of actual
sin, only secondarily of the others. Therefore we shall
consider: first, personal mortal sin; second, venial sin.
III. MORTAL SIN
Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII,
xxvii) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem
aeternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the
eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal
law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it
is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from
God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to
some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted
generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual
mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of
sin. The words "dictum vel factum vel concupitum" denote the
material element of sin, a human act: "contra legem aeternam",
the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the
Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a
"prevarication of the Divine law". The definition of St.
Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our
true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as
much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law,
although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be
included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a
definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be
included in the definition because they presuppose some positive
act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are
reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the
natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human
or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as
every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not
just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law.
Biblical Description of Sin
In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience
(Gen., ii, 16-17; iii, 11; Is., i, 2-4; Jer., ii, 32); as an
insult to God (Num., xxvii, 14); as something detested and
punished by God (Gen., iii, 14-19; Gen., iv, 9-16); as injurious
to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1,
19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that
sin is a transgression of the law (Rom., ii, 23; v, 12-20); a
servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Rom., vi,
16-18); a disobedience (Heb., ii, 2) punished by God (Heb., x,
26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder
of the will (John, xii, 43), an iniquity (I John, iii, 4-10).
Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent
of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the
old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but
also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His
Sermon on the Mount, he condemns as sinful many acts which were
judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the
Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal,
infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He
teaches that sins come from the heart (Matt., xv, 19-20).
Systems Which Deny Sin or Distort its True Notion
All systems, religious and ethical, which either deny, on the
one hand, the existence of a personal creator and lawgiver
distinct from and superior to his creation, or, on the other,
the existence of free will and responsibility in man, distort or
destroy the true biblico-theological notion of sin. In the
beginning of the Christian era the Gnostics, although their
doctrines varied in details, denied the existence of a personal
creator. The idea of sin in the Catholic sense is not contained
in their system. There is no sin for them, unless it be the sin
of ignorance, no necessity for an atonement; Jesus is not God
(see GNOSTICISM). Manichaeism (q.v.) with its two eternal
principles, good and evil, at perpetual war with each other, is
also destructive of the true notion of sin. All evil, and
consequently sin, is from the principle of evil. The Christian
concept of God as a lawgiver is destroyed. Sin is not a
conscious voluntary act of disobedience to the Divine will.
Pantheistic systems which deny the distinction between God and
His creation make sin impossible. If man and God are one, man is
not responsible to anyone for his acts, morality is destroyed.
If he is his own rule of action, he cannot deviate from right as
St. Thomas teaches (I:63:1). The identification of God and the
world by Pantheism (q.v.) leaves no place for sin.
There must be some law to which man is subject, superior to and
distinct from him, which can be obeyed and transgressed, before
sin can enter into his acts. This law must be the mandate of a
superior, because the notions of superiority and subjection are
correlative. This superior can be only God, who alone is the
author and lord of man. Materialism, denying as it does the
spirituality and the immortality of the soul, the existence of
any spirit whatsoever, and consequently of God, does not admit
sin. There is no free will, everything is determined by the
inflexible laws of motion. "Virtue" and "vice" are meaningless
qualifications of action. Positivism places man's last end in
some sensible good. His supreme law of action is to seek the
maximum of pleasure. Egotism or altruism is the supreme norm and
criterion of the Positivistic systems, not the eternal law of
God as revealed by Him, and dictated by conscience. For the
materialistic evolutionists man is but a highly-developed
animal, conscience a product of evolution. Evolution has
revolutionized morality, sin is no more.
Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" having rejected all the
essential notions of true morality, namely, liberty, the soul,
God and a future life, attempted in his "Critique of the
Practical Reason" to restore them in the measure in which they
are necessary for morality. The practical reason, he tells us,
imposes on us the idea of law and duty. The fundamental
principle of the morality of Kant is "duty for duty's sake", not
God and His law. Duty cannot be conceived of alone as an
independent thing. It carries with it certain postulates, the
first of which is liberty. "I ought, therefore I can", is his
doctrine. Man by virtue of his practical reason has a
consciousness of moral obligation (categorical imperative). This
consciousness supposes three things: free will, the immortality
of the soul, the existence of God, otherwise man would not be
capable of fulfilling his obligations, there would be no
sufficient sanction for the Divine law, no reward or punishment
in a future life. Kant's moral system labours in obscurities and
contradictions and is destructive of much that pertains to the
teaching of Christ. Personal dignity is the supreme rule of
man's actions. The notion of sin as opposed to God is
suppressed. According to the teaching of materialistic Monism,
now so widespread, there is, and can be, no free will. According
to this doctrine but one thing exists and this one being
produces all phenomena, thought included; we are but puppets in
its hands, carried hither an thither as it wills, and finally
are cast back into nothingness. There is no place for good and
evil, a free observance or a wilful transgression of law, in
such a system. Sin in the true sense is impossible. Without law
and liberty and a personal God there is no sin.
That God exists and can be known from His visible creation, that
He has revealed the decrees of His eternal will to man, and is
distinct from His creatures (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion",
nn. 178 2, 1785, 1701), are matters of Catholic faith and
teaching. Man is a created being endowed with free will (ibid.,
793), which fact can be proved from Scripture and reason (ibid.,
1041-1650). The Council of Trent declares in Sess. VI, c. i
(ibid., 793) that man by reason of the prevarication of Adam has
lost his primeval innocence, and that while free will remains,
its powers are lessened (see ORIGINAL SIN).
Protestant Errors
Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free
will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our
first parents; that the fulfillment of God's precepts is
impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in
all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but
something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are
covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone
saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther's
doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law.
Jansenius, in his "Augustinus", taught that according to the
present powers of man some of God's precepts are impossible of
fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he
further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment
becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental
error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is
necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal
liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from
coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught
a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but
is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin.
True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed
involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in
Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1050-1). All acts done
without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they
proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a
voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a
precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned.
Philosophical Sin
Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and
His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin.
Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the
natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is
a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic
tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the
existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in
regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the
theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment,
are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His
law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a
distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain
that in the present order of God's providence there are morally
bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not
offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that
the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not
actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the
knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to
offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous,
temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in
his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or
moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature
and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free
transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be,
philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does
not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an
offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God,
nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).
This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish
between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes
invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead
of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present
dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in
Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free
will of man (Rom., ii, 5-11). There is no morally bad act that
does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact
that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived
of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the
notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case
and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has
power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact
that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by
conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly,
and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is
necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo
(De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of
philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God,
but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the
present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible
ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily
fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is
commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate
of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law
as a principle of morality.
Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter
Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart,
1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those
actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which
proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge
of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational
creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by
virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a
human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as
it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act.
The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the
act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin
there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and
full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An
involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is
not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is
judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of
councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged
to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in
regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins
admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy,
hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo),
unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of
the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other
sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere
suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to
constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter,
but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its
smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
Imputability
That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not
necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act
should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that
it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner
foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act
which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When
the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly
willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows
indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three
conditions are verified:
+ first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil
effects which follow on the cause he places;
+ second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
+ third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil
effect.
Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of
the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and
consequently the morality and imputability of the act.
Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible
ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see
IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the
intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion
increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely
desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the
passions may be so great as to render a free judgment
impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself
(I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a
command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a
sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity,
temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect
free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From
the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius
(Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an
actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal
voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required.
No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or
in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness
of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is
not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and
break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will
to an evil act suffices.
Malice
The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and
voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a
contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God,
our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to
which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and
an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who
is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives
God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of
malice on the sinner's part, but God's immutability that
prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal
sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed
against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is
measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas,
III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not
being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against
Christ Who has redeemed man (Phil., iii, 18); against the Holy
Ghost Who sanctifies us (Heb., x, 29), an injury to man himself,
causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the
servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is
derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends,
and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end
for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround
the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act
which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be
rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of
the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad,
or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree.
Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree
that it becomes specifically different from what it is
objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin
while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen
its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence
two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some
good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in
their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere
execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not,
according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential
goodness or malice to the internal sin.
Gravity
While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all
mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture
(John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason.
Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do
not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since
sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not
equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other
things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas,
"De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5).
Specific and numeric distinction of Sin
Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse
objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to
morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are
specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within
the same species are distinguished numerically according to the
number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects.
A total object is one which, either in itself or by the
intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not
referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the
completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are
as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts.
Subject causes of Sin
Since sin is a voluntary act lacking in due rectitude, sin is
found, as in a subject, principally in the will. But, since not
only acts elicited by the will are voluntary, but also those
that are elicited by other faculties at the command of the will,
sin may be found in these faculties in so far as they are
subject in their actions to the command of the will, and are
instruments of the will, and move under its guidance (I-II:74).
The external members of the body cannot be effective principles
of sin (I-II:74:2, ad 3um). They are mere organs which are set
in activity by the soul; they do not initiate action. The
appetitive powers on the contrary can be effective principles of
sin, for they possess, through their immediate conjunction with
the will and their subordination to it, a certain though
imperfect liberty (I-II:56:4, ad 3um). The sensual appetites
have their own proper sensible objects to which they naturally
incline, and since original sin has broken the bond which held
them in complete subjection to the will, they may antecede the
will in their actions and tend to their own proper objects
inordinately. Hence they may be proximate principles of sin when
they move inordinately contrary to the dictates of right reason.
It is the right of reason to rule the lower faculties, and when
the disturbance arises in the sensual part the reason may do one
of two things: it may either consent to the sensible delectation
or it may repress and reject it. If it consents, the sin is no
longer one of the sensual part of man, but of the intellect and
will, and consequently, if the matter is grave, mortal. If
rejected, no sin can be imputed. There can be no sin in the
sensual part of man independently of the will. The inordinate
motions of the sensual appetite which precede the advertence of
reason, or which are suffered unwillingly, are not even venial
sins. The temptations of the flesh not consented to are not
sins. Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original
sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is
not given to it (Coun. of Trent, sess. V, can. v). The sensual
appetite of itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin, for the
reason that it can neither grasp the notion of God as an
ultimate end, nor avert us from Him, without which aversion
there cannot be mortal sin. The superior reason, whose office it
is to occupy itself with Divine things, may be the proximate
principle of sin both in regard to its own proper act, to know
truth, and as it is directive of the inferior faculties: in
regard to its own proper act, in so far as it voluntarily
neglects to know what it can and ought to know; in regard to the
act by which it directs the inferior faculties, to the extent
that it commands inordinate acts or fails to repress them
(I-II:74:7, ad 2um).
The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a
sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either
actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing
to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could
and should do so. The superior reason is the ultimate judge of
human acts and has an obligation of deliberating and deciding
whether the act to be performed is according to the law of God.
Venial sin may also be found in the superior reason when it
deliberately consents to sins that are venial in their nature,
or when there is not a full consent in the case of a sin that is
mortal considered objectively.
Causes of Sin
Under this head, it is needful to distinguish between the
efficient cause, i.e. the agent performing the sinful action,
and those other agencies, influences or circumstances, which
incite to sin and consequently involve a danger, more or less
grave, for one who is exposed to them. These inciting causes are
explained in special articles on OCCASIONS OF SIN and
TEMPTATION. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or
causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and
sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its
actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive
appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance,
infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the
reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive
appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from
certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not
under the influence of ignorance or passion.
The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to
sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad
example. God is not the cause of sin (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI,
can. vi, in Denz.-Bann., 816). He directs all things to Himself
and is the end of all His actions, and could not be the cause of
evil without self-contradiction. Of whatever entity there is in
sin as an action, He is the cause. The evil will is the cause of
the disorder (I-II:79:2). One sin may be the cause of another
inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The
seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source
from which other sins proceed. They are sinful propensities
which reveal themselves in particular sinful acts. Original sin
by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in
so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and
inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and
concupiscence are the consequences of original sin.
Effects of Sin
The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his
true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The
sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual
aversion from God. The sinful state is voluntary and imputable
to the sinner, because it necessarily follows from the act of
sin he freely placed, and it remains until satisfaction is made
(see PENANCE). This state of sin is called by theologians
habitual sin, not in the sense that habitual sin implies a
vicious habit, but in the sense that it signifies a state of
aversion from God depending on the preceding actual sin,
consequently voluntary and imputable. This state of aversion
carries with it necessarily in the present order of God's
providence the privation of grace and charity by means of which
man is ordered to his supernatural end. The privation of grace
is the "macula peccati" (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxvi), the stain
of sin spoken of in Scripture (Jos., xxii, 17; Isaias, iv, 4; 1
Cor., vi, 11). It is not anything positive, a quality or
disposition, an obligation to suffer, an extrinsic denomination
coming from sin, but is solely the privation of sanctifying
grace. There is not a real but only a conceptual distinction
between habitual sin (reatus culpae) and the stain of sin
(macula peccati). One and the same privation considered as
destroying the due order of man to God is habitual sin,
considered as depriving the soul of the beauty of grace is the
stain or "macula" of sin.
The second effect of sin is to entail the penalty of undergoing
suffering (reatus paenae). Sin (reatus culpae) is the cause of
this obligation (reatus paenae). The suffering may be inflicted
in this life through the medium of medicinal punishments,
calamities, sickness, temporal evils, which tend to withdraw
from sin; or it may be inflicted in the life to come by the
justice of God as vindictive punishment. The punishments of the
future life are proportioned to the sin committed, and it is the
obligation of undergoing this punishment for unrepented sin that
is signified by the "reatus poenae" of the theologians. The
penalty to be undergone in the future life is divided into the
pain of loss (paena damni) and the pain of sense (paena sensus).
The pain of loss is the privation of the beatific vision of God
in punishment of turning away from Him. The pain of sense is
suffering in punishment of the conversion to some created thing
in place of God. This two-fold pain in punishment of mortal sin
is eternal (I Cor., vi, 9; Matt., xxv, 41; Mark, ix, 45). One
mortal sin suffices to incur punishment. (See HELL.) Other
effects of sins are: remorse of conscience (Wisdom, v, 2-13); an
inclination towards evil, as habits are formed by a repetition
of similar acts; a darkening of the intelligence, a hardening of
the will (Matt., xiii, 14-15; Rom., xi, 8); a general vitiating
of nature, which does not however totally destroy the substance
and faculties of the soul but merely weakens the right exercise
of its faculties.
IV. VENIAL SIN
Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not
avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity,
the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of
sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is
called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper
nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but
temporal punishment. It is distinguished from mortal sin on the
part of the disorder. By mortal sin man is entirely averted from
God, his true last end, and, at least implicitly, he places his
last end in some created thing. By venial sin he is not averted
from God, neither does he place his last end in creatures. He
remains united with God by charity, but does not tend towards
Him as he ought. The true nature of sin as it is contrary to the
eternal law, repugnant namely to the primary end of the law, is
found only in mortal sin. Venial sin is only in an imperfect way
contrary to the law, since it is not contrary to the primary end
of the law, nor does it avert man from the end intended by the
law. (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1; and Cajetan, I-II, Q.
lxxxviii, a. 1, for the sense of the praeter legem and contra
legem of St. Thomas).
Definition
Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of
sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a
thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It
retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting
him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully
deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God,
or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an
ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the
sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an
end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately
placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he
does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end,
but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually
inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. "Ille qui
peccat venialiter, inhaeret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia
non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum no n
actu sed habitu" (I-II:88:1, ad 3). For a mortal sin, some
created good must be adhered to as a last end at least
implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a
semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at
variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the
primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up
between God and that object. The created good is not desired as
an end. The sinner is not placed in the position of choosing
between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but
is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he
adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true last end he
would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with
God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will
refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to
dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what
is displeasing to his friends without destroying friendship.
The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in
Scripture. From St. John (I John, v, 16-17) it is clear there
are some sins "unto death" and some sins not "unto death", i.e.
mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of
mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (I Cor., iii, 8-15),
where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and
venial sin. "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which
is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this
foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:
every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord
shall declare it; because it shall be revealed in fire; and the
fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any
man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall
receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss;
but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." By wood, hay,
and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2)
which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do
not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit
eternal but temporal punishment. "Just as", says St. Thomas,
[wood, hay, and stubble] "are gathered together in a house and
do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial
sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and
for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in
this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless
obtains eternal salvation." (ibid.)
The suitableness of the division into wood, hay, and stubble is
explained by St. Thomas (iv, dist. 21, Q. i, a. 2). Some venial
sins are graver than others and less pardonable, and this
difference is well signified by the difference in the
inflammability of wood, hay, and stubble. That there is a
distinction between mortal and venial sins is of faith (Counc.
of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi and canons 23-25; sess. XIV, de
poenit., c. v). This distinction is commonly rejected by all
heretics ancient and modern. In the fourth century Jovinian
asserted that all sins are equal in guilt and deserving of the
same punishment (St. Aug., "Ep. 167", ii, n. 4); Pelagius
(q.v.), that every sin deprives man of justice and therefore is
mortal; Wyclif, that there is no warrant in Scripture for
differentiating mortal from venial sin, and that the gravity of
sin depends not on the quality of the action but on the decree
of predestination or reprobation so that the worst crime of the
predestined is infinitely less than the slightest fault of the
reprobate; Hus, that all the actions of the vicious are mortal
sins, while all the acts of the good are virtuous (Denz.-Bann.,
642); Luther, that all sins of unbelievers are mortal and all
sins of the regenerate, with the exception of infidelity, are
venial; Calvin, like Wyclif, bases the difference between mortal
sin and venial sin on predestination, but adds that a sin is
venial because of the faith of the sinner. The twentieth among
the condemned propositions of Baius reads: "There is no sin
venial in its nature, but every sin merits eternal punishment"
(Denz.-Bann., 1020). Hirscher in more recent times taught that
all sins which are fully deliberate are mortal, thus denying the
distinction of sins by reason of their objects and making the
distinction rest on the imperfection of the act (Kleutgen, 2nd
ed., II, 284, etc.).
Malice of Venial Sin
The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists
in this: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the
eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which
commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an
end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance
with the law, not in contrary opposition to it, not attacking
its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect
accomplishment is prevented by venial sin.
Conditions
Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light,
even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the
will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter
of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of
the intellect and full consent on the part of the will. A
precept obliges sub gravi when it has for its object an
important end to be attained, and its transgression is
prohibited under penalty of losing God's friendship. A precept
obliges sub levi when it is not so directly imposed.
Effects
Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or
diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does
mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue -- "In anima
duplex est nitor, unus quiden habitualis, ex gratia
sanctificante, alter actualis ex actibus virtutem, jamvero
peccatum veniale impedit quidem fulgorem qui ex actibus virtutum
oritur, non autem habitualem nitorem, quia non excludit nec
minuit habitum charitatis" (I-II:89:1). Frequent and deliberate
venial sin lessens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal
sin (I-II:88:3), and hinders the reception of graces God would
otherwise give. It displeases God (Apoc., ii, 4-5) and obliges
the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in
Purgatory. We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life.
"Although the most just and holy occasionally during this life
fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they
cease not on that account to be just" (Counc. of Trent, sess.
VI, c. xi). And canon xxiii says: "If any one declare that a man
once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the
rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema",
but according to the common opinion we can avoid all such as are
fully deliberate. Venial sin may coexist with mortal sin in
those who are averted from God by mortal sin. This fact does not
change its nature or intrinsic reparability, and the fact that
it is not coexistent with charity is not the result of venial
sin, but of mortal sin. It is per accidens, for an extrinsic
reason, that venial sin in this case is irreparable, and is
punished in hell. That venial sin may appear in its true nature
as essentially different from mortal sin it is considered as de
facto coexisting with charity (I Cor., iii, 8-15). Venial sins
do not need the grace of absolution. They can be remitted by
prayer, contrition, fervent communion, and other pious works.
Nevertheless it is laudable to confess them (Denz.-Bann., 1539).
V. PERMISSION OF SIN AND REMEDIES.
Since it is of faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all
good it is difficult to account for sin in His creation. The
existence of evil is the underlying problem in all theology.
Various explanations to account for its existence have been
offered, differing according to the philosophical principles and
religious tenets of their authors. Any Catholic explanation must
take into account the defined truths of the omnipotence,
omniscience, and goodness of God; free will on the part of man;
and the fact that suffering is the penalty of sin. Of
metaphysical evil, the negation of a greater good, God is the
cause inasmuch as he has created beings with limited forms. Of
physical evil (malum paenae) He is also the cause. Physical
evil, considered as it proceeds from God and is inflicted in
punishment of sin in accordance with the decrees of Divine
justice, is good, compensating for the violation of order by
sin. It is only in the subject affected by it that it is evil.
Of moral evil (malum culpae) God is not the cause (Counc. of
Trent, sess. VI, can. vi), either directly or indirectly. Sin is
a violation of order, and God orders all things to Himself, as
an ultimate end, consequently He cannot be the direct cause of
sin. God's withdrawal of grace which would prevent the sin does
not make Him the indirect cause of sin inasmuch as this
withdrawal is affected according to the decrees of His Divine
wisdom and justice in punishment of previous sin. He is under no
obligation of impeding the sin, consequently it cannot be
imputed to Him as a cause (I-II:79:1). When we read in Scripture
and the Fathers that God inclines men to sin the sense is,
either that in His just judgment He permits men to fall into sin
by a punitive permission, exercising His justice in punishment
of past sin; or that He directly causes, not sin, but certain
exterior works, good in themselves, which are so abused by the
evil wills of men that here and now they commit evil; or that He
gives them the power of accomplishing their evil designs. Of the
physical act in sin God is the cause inasmuch as it is an entity
and good. Of the malice of sin man's evil will is the sufficient
cause. God could not be impeded in the creation of man by the
fact that He foresaw his fall. This would mean the limiting of
His omnipotence by a creature, and would be destructive of Him.
He was free to create man even though He foresaw his fall, and
He created him, endowed him with free will, and gave him
sufficient means of persevering in good had he so willed. We
must sum up our ignorance of the permission of evil by saying in
the words of St. Augustine, that God would not have permitted
evil had He not been powerful enough to bring good out of evil.
God's end in creating this universe is Himself, not the good of
man, and somehow or other good and evil serve His ends, and
there shall finally be a restoration of violated order by Divine
justice. No sin shall be without its punishment. The evil men do
must be atoned for either in this world by penance (see PENANCE)
or in the world to come in purgatory or hell, according as the
sin that stains the soul, and is not repented of, is mortal or
venial, and merits eternal or temporal punishment. (See EVIL.)
God has provided a remedy for sin and manifested His love and
goodness in the face of man's ingratitude by the Incarnation of
His Divine Son (see INCARNATION); by the institution of His
Church to guide men and interpret to them His law, and
administer to them the sacraments, seven channels of grace,
which, rightly used, furnish an adequate remedy for sin and a
means to union with God in heaven, which is the end of His law.
VI. SENSE OF SIN.
The understanding of sin, as far as it can be understood by our
finite intelligence, serves to unite man more closely to God. It
impresses him with a salutary fear, a fear of his own powers, a
fear, if left to himself, of falling from grace; with the
necessity he lies under of seeking God's help and grace to stand
firm in the fear and love of God, and make progress in the
spiritual life. Without the acknowledgment that the present
moral state of man is not that in which God created him, that
his powers are weakened; that he has a supernatural end to
attain, which is impossible of attainment by his own unaided
efforts, without grace there being no proportion between the end
and the means; that the world, the flesh, and the devil are in
reality active agents fighting against him and leading him to
serve them instead of God, sin cannot be understood. The
evolutionary hypothesis would have it that physical evolution
accounts for the physical origin of man, that science knows no
condition of man in which man exhibited the characteristics of
the state of original justice, no state of sinlessness. The fall
of man in this hypothesis is in reality a rise to a higher grade
of being. "A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes
seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a
rise it really was" (Sir O. Lodge, "Life and Matter", p. 79).
This teaching is destructive of the notion of sin as taught by
the Catholic Church. Sin is not a phase of an upward struggle,
it is rather a deliberate, wilful refusal to struggle. If there
has been no fall from a higher to a lower state, then the
teaching of Scripture in regard to Redemption and the necessity
of a baptismal regeneration is unintelligible. The Catholic
teaching is the one that places sin in its true light, that
justifies the condemnation of sin we find in Scripture.
The Church strives continually to impress her children with a
sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid
it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is
a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we
cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no
obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate
sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and
pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us.
Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through
the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us,
restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin
of our first parents, and making us once again children of God
and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and
unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid
sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows.
Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior
state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which
fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity,
destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man
inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in
reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement.
Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and
continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against
sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned
in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.)
DOGMATIC WORKS: ST. THOMAS, Summa theol., I-II, QQ. lxxi-lxxxix;
IDEM, Contra gentes, tr. RICKABY, Of God and His Creatures
(London, 1905); IDEM, Quaest. disputatae: De malo in Opera omnia
(Paris, 1875); BILLUART, De peccatis (Paris, 1867-72); SUAREZ,
De pecc. in Opera omnia (Paris, 1878); SALMANTICENSES, De pecc.
in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1877); GONET, Clypeus theol. thom.
(Venice, 1772); JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, De pecc. in Curs. theol.
(Paris, 1886); SYLVIUS, De pecc. (Antwerp, 1698); Catechismus
Romanus, tr. DONOVAN, Catechism of the Council of Trent (Dublin,
1829); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch d. kath. Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1873-87);
MANNING, Sin and its Consequences (New York, 1904); SHARPE,
Principles of Christianity (London, 1904); IDEM, Evil, its
Nature and Cause (London, 1906); BILLOT, De nat. et rat. peccati
personalis (Rome, 1900); TANQUEREY, Synopsis theol., I (New
York, 1907).
A.C. O'NEIL
Sinai
Sinai
The mountain on which the Mosaic Law was given.
Horeb and Sinai were thought synonymous by St. Jerome ("De situ
et nom. Hebr.", in P.L., XXIII, 889), W. Gesenius amd, more
recently, G. Ebers (p. 381). Ewald, Ed. Robinson. E.H. Palmer,
and others think Horeb denoted the whole mountainous region
about Sinai (Ex., xvii, 6). The origin of the name Sinai is
disputed. It seems to be an adjective from the Hebrew word for
"the desert" (Ewald and Ebers) or "the moon-god" (E. Schrader
and others). The mount was called Sinai, or "the mount of God"
probably before the time of Moses (Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", II,
xii.) The name is now given to the triangular peninsula lying
between the desert of Southern Palestine, the Red Sea, and the
gulfs of Akabah and Suez, with an area of about 10,000 square
miles, which was the scene of the forty years' wandering of the
Israelites after the Exodus from Egypt.
The principal topographical features are two. North of the Jabal
et-Tih (3200 to 3950 feet) stretches an arid plateau, the desert
of Tih, marked by numerous Wadis, notably El-Arish, the "River
of Egypt", which formed the southern boundary of the Promised
Land (Gen., xv, 18; Num., xxxiv, 5). South of Jabal et-Tih rises
a mountainous mass of granite streaked with porphyry, dividing
into three principal groups: the western, Jabal Serbal (6750
feet); the central, Jabal Musa (7380 feet), Jabal Catherine
(8560 feet), and Jabal Um Schomer (8470 feet); the eastern,
Jabal Thebt (7906 feet) and Jabal Tarfa, which terminates in Ras
Mohammed. It is among these mountains that Jewish and Christian
tradition places the Sinai of the Bible, but the precise
location is uncertain. It is Jabal Musa, according to a
tradition traceable back to the fourth century, when St. Silvia
of Aquitaine was there. Jabal Musa is defended by E.H. and H.S.
Palmer, Vigouroux, Lagrange, and others. However, the difficulty
of applying Ex., xix, 12, to Jabal Musa and the inscriptions
found near Jabal Serbal have led some to favour Serbal. This was
the opinion of St. Jerome (P.L., XXIII, 916, 933) and Cosmas
(P.G., LXXXVIII, 217), and more recently of Birkhard and
Lepsius, and it has of late been very strongly defended by G.
Ebers, not to mention Beke, Gressmann, and others, who consider
the whole story about Sinai (Ex., xix) only a mythical
interpretation of some volcanic eruption. The more liberal
critics, while agreeing generally that the Jewish traditions
represented by the "Priest-Codex" and "Elohistic documents"
place Sinai among the mountains in the south-central part of the
peninsula, yet disagree as to its location by the older
"Jahvistic" tradition (Ex., ii, 15, 16, 21; xviii, 1, 5). A. von
Gall, whose opinion Welhausen thinks the best sustained,
contends that Meribar (D. V. Temptation. - Ex., xvii, 14), that
the Israelites never went so far south as Jabal Musa, and hence
that Sinai must be looked for in Madian, on the east coast of
Akabar. Others (cf. Winckler, II, p.29; Smend, p. 35, n. 2; and
Weill, opp. Cit. Infra in bibliography) look for Sinai in the
near neighbourhood of Cades (Ayn Qadis) in Southern Palestine.
Sinai was the refuge of many Christian anchorites during the
third-century persecutions of the Church. There are traces of a
fourth-century monastery near Mount Serbal. In 527 the Emperor
Justinian built the famous convent of Mt. Sinai on the north
foot of Jabal Musa, which has been known since the ninth century
as St. Catherine's. Its small library contains about 500 volumes
of valuable manuscripts in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, etc.
It was here that Tischendorf, during his researches in 1844,
1853, and 1859, found a very ancient Greek MS. (since known as
the "Codex Sinaiticus") containing most of the Septuagint, all
the new Testament, the "Epistle of Barnabas" and the first part
of the "Shepherd" of Hermas. Forty-three MS. Pages found by him
are preserved at the University of Leipzig and known as the
"Codex Friderico-Augustanus". In 1892 Mrs. Smith Lewis found at
Sinai a fourth-century palimpsest Syriac text of St. Luke's
Gospel. Sinai is rich in valuable inscriptions. M. de Voguee
gives 3200 Egyptian and Semitic inscriptions found in the Wadi
Mukatteb, the ruins of the temple of Ischta, or
Astaroth-Carmain, and the iron and turquoise mines and granite
and marble quarries, which were extensively worked under the
twelfth and eighteenth Egyptian dynasties.
The present population of Sinai is 4000 to 6000 semi-nomadic
Arabs, Mohammedans, governed by their tribal sheikhs and
immediately subject to the commandant of the garrison at Qal' at
un-Nakhl, under the Intelligence Department of the Egyptian War
Office at Cairo.
NICHOLAS REAGAN
Sinaloa
Sinaloa
DIOCESE OF SINALOA (SINALOENSIS)
Diocese in the Republic of Mexico, suffragan of the Archdiocese
of Durango. Its area is that of the State of Sinaloa, 27,552 sq.
miles, and its population (1910) 323,499. Culiacan, the capital
of the state and residence of the bishop and governor, counts a
population (1910) of 13,578. The present territory of Sinaloa
was discovered in 1530 by the ill-reputed D. Nuno de Guzman who
founded the city of San Miguel de Culiacan. A few Spaniards
established a colony there. The province of Culiacan was soon
obliged to face the terrors of war brought upon it by the
barbarous cruelties of Nuno and his favourite, Diego Hernandez
de Proano. So frightened was Nuno by the terrible insurrection
that he removed Proano, placing in his stead Cristobal de Tapia,
whose humanitarian measures slowly restored confidence. Although
colonized from the beginning of the sixteenth century, most of
the territory, excepting a few strong places, was inhabited by
fierce pagan tribes, for whose conversion the Jesuits laboured
early in the seventeenth century. After having subdued and
evangelized the Indians of the mission of Piaxtla in a
comparatively short time, and after having turned over to the
Bishop of Durango the settlements under their control, the
Jesuits extended their domination over the Indians living in the
northern part of the actual state and at the time of their
expulsion (by decree of Charles III) they fruitfully
administered the missions of Chinipas and Sinaloa. In Chinipas
they had residences at Guasarapes, Santa Ana, Secora, Moris,
Barbaroco, Santa Ines, Serocagui, Tubares, Satebo, Baborigame,
Nabogame, and San Andres; in Sinaloa (mision del Fuerte) they
had residences at Mocorito, Nio, Guazave, Chicorato, Mochicave,
Batacosa, Conicari, Tehueco, Ocoroni, and Bacubirito. It is
notable that the towns of the mision del Rio Yaqui, which now
belong to the Diocese of Sonora, were then included in the
mission of Sinaloa. When the See of Durango was founded in 1620,
Sinaloa, which until then had belonged to the Diocese of
Guadalajara, became part of it; on the foundation (1780) of the
Diocese of Sonora, it became a part of the latter. However, the
residence of the bishop, after having been successively at
Arispe and Alamo, passed to Culiacan, capital of Sinaloa until
1883, when Leo XIII founded the Diocese of Sinaloa, which had
formed part of the ecclesiastical province of Guadalajara, and
the Bishop of Sonora removed to Hermosillo. In 1891, when the
new archiepiscopal See of Durango was created, Sinaloa became
one of its suffragans.
The diocese has 1 seminary with 18 students; 10 parochial
schools; 3 colleges with 677 students.
CAMILLUS CRIVELLI
Sinigaglia
Sinigaglia
(SENIGALLIA), DIOCESE OF SINIGAGLIA (SENOGALLIENSIS)
Diocese in the Province of Ancona in the Marches (Central
Italy). The city is situated on the Adriatic at the mouth of the
Misa, which divides it into two parts. Maritime commerce, the
cultivation and manufacture of silk, agriculture, and
cattle-raising from the means of support of the population. The
fortifications constructed by the dukes of Urbino and by the
popes still remain in part. Among the churches besides the
cathedral, that of Santa Maria delle Grazie (1491) without the
city walls deserves mention; it possesses a Madonna with six
saints by Perugino, and another Madonna by Piero della
Francesca. The name Senigallia records the Senones, a tribe of
Gauls who possessed this city before its conquest by the Romans.
The latter founded a colony here called Sena Hadria, but later
the name most commonly used was Senogallia or Senigallia. In the
Civil War (B.C. 82) it was sacked by Pompey, then one of Sulla's
generals. It was pillaged a second time by Alaric, A.D. 408.
Under the Byzantine rule it belonged to the so-called
Pentapolis. Several times in the sixth and eighth centuries the
Lombards attempted to capture it, and, in fact, shortly before
the city was bestowed upon the Holy See it was the seat of a
Duke Arioldo, who in 772 owed allegiance to King Desiderius. It
afterwards shared the vicissitudes of the March of Ancona, and
at the end of the twelfth century was the seat of a count. In
the wars between the popes and Frederick II it belonged for the
most part to the party of the Guelphs, for which reason it
sustained many sieges, and was in 1264 sacked by Percivale
Doria, captain of King Manfred. Hardly recovered from this
calamity, it fell into the power of Guido di Montefeltro (1280).
In 1306 it was captured by Pandolfo Malatesta of Pesaro and
remained in his family, notwithstanding that they were expelled
by Cardinal Bertrando du Poyet and were expelled by Cardinal
Albornoz (1355). In 1416 Ludovico Migliorati of Fermo and the
cities of Ancona and Camerino formed a league against Galeotto
Malatesta, and captured Sinigaglia, but they afterwards restored
it. In 1445 it was take by Sigismondo Malatesta of Rimini, who
also secured the investiture from Eugenius IV and fortified the
city.
After various vicissitudes Sinigaglia was (1474) given in fief
to Giovanni della Rovere, a nephew of Sixtus IV. He married the
last heiress of the duchy of Urbino, of which the city thus
became a part (1508). In December, 1502, Sinigaglia, which had
thrown open its gates to Caesar Borgia, was the scene of the
celebrated treachery by which Borgia rid himself of his enemies,
the petty lords of the Romagna. In 1624 it came under the
immediate suzerainty of the popes. In 1683 Turkish pirates
disembarked and plundered the city. Sinigaglia was the
birthplace of Pius IX and B. Gherardo di Serra (fourteenth
century). The patron saint of Sinigaglia is St. Paulinus, whose
body is preserved in the cathedral (as is attested for the first
time in 1397). He is, therefore, not identical with St. Paulinus
of Nola, nor is it known to what epoch he belongs. The first
bishop of certain date was Venantius (502). About 562 the bishop
was St. Bonifacius, who at the time of the Lombard invasion was
martyred by the Arians. Under Bishop Sigismundus (c. 590) the
relics of St. Gaudentius, Bishop of Rimini and martyr, were
transported to Sinigaglia. Other bishops of the diocese are:
Robertus and Theodosius (1057), friends of St. Peter Damianus:;
Jacopo (1232-1270), who rebuilt the cathedral which had been
destroyed in 1264 by the Saracen troops of King Manfred;
Francesco Mellini (1428), an Augustinian, who died at Rome,
suffocated by the crowd at a consistory of Egenius IV. Under
Bishop Antonio Colombella (1438), an Augustinian, Sigismondo
Malatesta, lord of Sinigaglia, angered by his resistance to the
destruction of certain houses, caused the cathedral and the
episcopal palace to be demolished. The precious materials were
transported to Rimini and were used in the construction of S.
Francesco (tempio Malatestiano). Under Bishop Marco Vigerio
Della Rovere (1513) the new cathedral was begun in 1540; it was
consecrated in 1595 by Pietro Ridolfi (1591), a learned writer.
Other bishops were Cardinal Antonio Barberini, a Capuchin
brother of Urban VIII; Cardinal Domenico Poracciani (1714);
Annibale della Genga (1816), who afterwards became Pope Leo XII.
The diocese is suffragan of Urbino; it has 48 parishes with 114
secular and 78 regular clergy; 92,000 souls; 15 monasteries for
men; 19 convents for women; and 3 institutes for female
education.
U. BENIGNI
Sinis
Sinis
Sinis, a titular See in Armenia Secunda, suffragan of Melitene.
The catalogue of titular bishoprics of the Roman Curia formerly
contained a see of Sinita, in Armenia. When the list was revised
in 1884, this name was replaced by Sinis, mentioned as belonging
to Armenia Secunda, with Melitene, now Malatia, as its
metropolis. Ptolemy, V. 7, 5, mentions a town called Siniscolon
in Cappadocia at Melitene, near the Euphrates. Mueller in his
"Notes `a Ptolemy" ed. Didot, I (Paris, 1901), 887, identifies
this with Sinekli, a village near the Euphrates, "ab Argovan
versus ortum hibernum", about nineteen miles north of Malatia in
the vilayet of Mamouret ul-Aziz. But it seems certain that
Siniscolon is a mis-reading for "Sinis Colonia", a form found in
several Manuscripts. Ramsay, "Asia Minor", 71, 272, 314, reads
Sinis for Pisonos in "Itinerar. Anton." and especially for
Sinispora in the "Tabula Peutingeriana" (Sinis, Erpa), and
places Sinis Colonia twenty-two Roman miles west of Melitene, on
the road to Caesarea. There is no mention of this town in the
Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum" among the suffragans of Melitene,
and none of its bishops is known, so it seems never to have been
a bishopric.
S. PETRIDES.
Sinope
Sinope
A titular see in Asia Minor, suffragan of Amasea in
Helenopontus. It is a Greek colony, situated on a peninsula on
the coast of Paphlagonia, of very early origin, some attributing
its foundation to the Argonaut Autolycus, a companion of
Hercules. Later it received a colony from Miletus which seems to
have been expelled or conquered by the Cimmerians (Herodotus,
IV, 12); but in 632 B.C. the Greeks succeeded again in capturing
it. Henceforth Sinope enjoyed great prosperity and founded
several colonies, among them being Cerasus, Cotyora, and
Trapezus. The town took part in the Peloponnesian War,
supporting Athens. Zenophon stopped there with his forces on the
retreat of the Ten thousand (Anab. V, v, 3; Diodor,. Sicul.,
XIV, 30, 32; Ammien Marcel., XXII, 8). Fruitlessly besieged in
220 B.C. by Mithridates IV, King of Pontus, Sinope was taken by
Pharnaces in 183 B.C., and became the capital and residence of
the kings of Pontus. It was the birthplace of Mithridates the
Great, who adorned it with magnificent monuments and constructed
large arsenals there for his fleet. Lkucullus captured it and
gave it back its autonomy. Caesar also established the Colonia
Julia Caesarea there in 45 B.C. when his supremacy began. Sinope
was also the birthplace of the cynic philosopher, Diogenes,
Diphilus, the comic poet, and Aquila, the Jew, who translated
the Old Testament into Greek in the second century A.D. A
Christian community existed there in the first half of the
second century, with a bishop, the father of the celebrated
heretic Marcion, whom he expelled from his diocese. Among its
other bishops may be mentioned St. Phocas, venerated on 22
September, with St. Phocas, the gardener of the same town, who
is possibly to be identified with him; Prohaeresios, present at
the Councils of Gangres and Philippopolis in 343 and 344;
Antiochus at the Council of Chalcedon, 451; Sergius at the Sixth
Ecumenical Council, 681; Zeno, who was exiled in 712 for
opposing Monothelitism; Gregory, present at the Seventh Council
in 787, beheaded in 793 for revolting against the emperor, etc.
A little before 1315 the Bishop of Sinope, driven out of his see
by the Turks, received in compensation the metropoles of Sida
and Sylaeos (Miklosich and Muller, "Acta patriarchatus
Constantinopolitani", I, 34); the diocese must have been
suppressed upon his death, as it is not mentioned in the
"Notitiae episcopatuum" of the fifteenth century. In 1401 a
Greek merchant who visited Sinope found everything in disorder
as a result of the Turkish inroads (Waechter, "Der Verfall des
Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert", 20); however,
the town, which had belonged to the Empire of Trapezus from 1204
was not captured till 1470 by Manomet II. In November, 1853, the
Turkish fleet was destroyed by the Russians in the port of
Sinope. Sinope is now the chief town of a sanjak of the vilayet
of Castamouni, containing 15,000 inhabitants, about one half of
whom are Greek schismatics.
S. VAILHE
Sion
Sion
Sion, a titular see in Asia Minor, suffragan of Ephesus. No
civil document mentions it. It is numbered among the suffragans
of Ephesus in the Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum", from the
seventh to the thirteenth century. [See Gelzer in "Abhandlungen
der k. bayer. Akademie der Wiss.", I. Cl. XXI Bd. III Abth.
(Munich, 1900), 536, 552; Idem, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis
romani" (Leipzig, 1890), 8, 62; Parthey, "Hierocles Synecdemus e
Notit. gr. episcopat. (Berlin, 1866), 61, 103, 155, 167, 203,
245.] The names of only three bishops of Sion are known:
Nestorius, present at the Council of Ephesus, 431; John, at the
Council in Trullo, 692; Philip, represented at Nicaea, 787, by
the priest Theognis (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", I, 721).
This author asks if Basil, Bishop poleos Asaion represented at
Chalcedon, 451, by his metropolitan does not belong to Sion; it
is more likely that he was Bishop of Assus. Ramsay ("Asia
Minor", 105) thinks that Sion is probably the same town as
Tianae, or Tiarae mentioned by Pliny, V, 33, 3, and Hierocles,
661, 8, and Attaca, mentioned by Strabo, XIII, 607; but this is
very doubtful. In any case the site of Sion is unknown.
S. PETRIDES.
Diocese of Sion
Sion
(Sedunensis)
A Swiss bishopric, depending directly on the Holy See.
HISTORY
The Diocese of Sion is the oldest in Switzerland and one of the
oldest north of the Alps. At first its see was at Octodurum, now
called Martinach, or Martigny. According to tradition there was
a Bishop of Octodurum, named Oggerius, as early as a.d. 300.
However, the first authenticated bishop is St. Theodore (d.
391), who was present at the Council of Aquileia in 381. On the
spot where the Abbey of Saint-Maurice now stands he built a
church in honour of St. Mauritius, martyred here about 300. He
also induced the hermits of the vicinity to unite in a common
life, thus beginning the Abbey of Saint-Maurice, the oldest
north of the Alps. Theodore rebuilt the church at Sion, which
had been destroyed by Emperor Maximianus at the beginning of the
fourth century. At first the diocese was a suffragan of Vienne;
later it became suffragan of Tarentaise. In 589 the bishop, St.
Heliodorus, transferred the see to Sion, as Octodurum was
frequently endangered by the inundations of the Rhone and the
Drance. There were frequent disputes with the monks of the Abbey
of Saint-Maurice, who were jealously watchful that the bishops
should not extend their jurisdiction over the abbey. Several of
the bishops united both offices, as: Wilcharius (764-80),
previously Archbishop of Vienne, from which he had been driven
by the Saracens; St. Alteus, who received from the pope a Bull
of exemption in favour of the monastery (780); Aimo II, son of
Count Hubert of Savoy, who entertained Leo IX at Saint-Maurice
in 1049.
The last king of Upper Burgundy, Rudolph III, granted the
Countship of Valais to Bishop Hugo (998- 1017); this union of
the spiritual and secular powers made the bishop the most
powerful ruler in the valley of the Upper Rhone. Taking this
donation as a basis, the bishops of Sion extended their secular
power, and the religious metropolis of the valley became also
the political centre. However, the union of the two powers was
the cause of violent disputes in the following centuries. For,
while the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop extended over the
whole valley of the Rhone above Lake Geneva, the Countship of
Valais included only the upper part of the valley, reaching to
the confluence of the Trient and the Rhone. The attempts of the
bishops of Sion to carry their secular power farther down the
Rhone were bitterly and successfully opposed by the abbots of
Saint-Maurice, who had obtained large possessions in Lower
Valais. The medieval bishops of Sion belonged generally to noble
families of Savoy and Valais and were often drawn into the feuds
of these families. Moreover the bishops were vigorously opposed
by the petty feudal nobles of Valais, who, trusting to their
fortified castles on rocky heights, sought to evade the
supremacy of the bishop who was at the same time count and
prefect of the Holy Roman Empire. Other opponents of the bishops
were the flourishing peasant communities of Upper Valais, which
were called later the sieben Zehnten (seven-tenths). Their
struggles with Savoy forced the bishops to grant continually
increasing political rights to the peasant communities. Thus
Bishop William IV of Raron (1437-57) was obliged to relinquish
civil and criminal jurisdiction over the sieben Zehnten by the
Treaty of Naters in 1446, while a revolt of his subjects
compelled Bishop Jost of Silinen (1482-96) to flee from the
diocese. Walter II of Supersax (1457-82) took part in the
battles of the Swiss against Charles the Bold of Burgundy and
his confederate, the Duke of Savoy, and in 1475 drove the House
of Savoy from Lower Valais. The most important bishop of this
era was Matthew Schinner (1499-1522), a highly cultivated
Humanist. Bishop Schinner, fearing that French supremacy would
endanger the freedom of the Swiss, placed the military force of
the diocese at the disposal of the pope and in 1510 brought
about an alliance for five years between the Swiss Confederacy
and the Roman Church. In return for this Julius II made the
bishop a cardinal. In 1513 the bishop had succeeded in having
his diocese separated from the Archdiocese of Tarentaise and
placed directly under the control of the pope. The defeat of the
Swiss in 1515 at the battle of Marignano, at which Schinner
himself fought, weakened his position in the diocese, and the
arbitrary rule of his brothers led to a revolt of his subjects;
in 1518 he was obliged to leave the diocese.
The new doctrines of the Reformation found little acceptance in
Valais, although preachers were sent into the canton from Berne,
Zurich, and Basle. In 1529 Bishop Adrian I of Riedmatten
(1529-48), the cathedral chapter, and the sieben Zehnten formed
an alliance with the Catholic cantons of the Confederation, the
purpose of which was to maintain and protect the Catholic Faith
in all the territories of the allied cantons against the efforts
of the Reformed cantons. On account of this alliance Valais
aided in gaining the victory of the Catholics over the followers
of Zwingli at Cappel in 1531; this victory saved the possessions
of the Catholic Church in Switzerland. The abbots of
Saint-Maurice opposed all religious innovations as energetically
as did Bishops Adrian I of Riedmatten, Hildebrand of Riedmatten
(1565-1604), and Adrian II of Riedmatten (1604-13), so that the
whole of Valais remained Catholic. Both Adrian II and his
successor Hildebrand Jost (1613-38) were again involved in
disputes with the sieben Zehnten in regard to the exercise of
the rights of secular supremacy. In order to put an end to these
quarrels and not to endanger the Catholic Faith he relinquished
in 1630 the greater part of his rights as secular suzerain, and
the power of the bishop was thereafter limited almost entirely
to the spiritual sphere.
The secular power of the bishops was brought to an end by the
French Revolution. In 1798 Valais, after an heroic struggle
against the supremacy of France, was incorporated into the
Helvetian Republic, and Bishop John Anthony Blatter (1790-1817)
retired to Novara. During the sway of Napoleon Valais was
separated from Switzerland in 1802 as the Rhodanic Republic, and
in 1810 was united with France. Most of the monasteries were
suppressed. In 1814 Valais threw off French supremacy, when the
Allies entered the territory; in 1815 it joined Switzerland as
one of the cantons. As partial compensation for the loss of his
secular power the bishop received a post of honour in the Diet
of the canton and the right to four votes. Disputes often arose
as the Constitution of 1815 of the canton gave Upper Valais
political predominance in the cantonal government,
notwithstanding the fact that its population was smaller than
that of Lower Valais. This led in 1840 to a civil war with Lower
Valais, where the "Young Swiss" party, hostile to the Church,
were in control. The party friendly to the Church conquered, it
is true, and the influence of the Church over teaching was, at
first, preserved, but on account of the defeat of the
Sonderband, with which Valais had united, a radical Government
gained control in 1847. The new administration at once showed
itself unfriendly to the Church, secularized many church landed
properties, and wrung large sums of money from the bishop and
monasteries. When in 1856 the moderate party gained the cantonal
election, negotiations were begun with Bishop Peter Joseph von
Preux (1843-75), and friendly relations were restored between
the diocese and the canton. In 1880 the two powers came to an
agreement as to the lands taken from the Church in 1848; these,
so far as they had not been sold, were given back for their
original uses. Since then the bishop and the Government have
been on friendly terms. The new Constitution of 1907 declares
the Catholic religion to be the religion of the canton, and
forbids any union of spiritual and secular functions. The
ordinances regulating the election of a bishop which have been
in existence from early times, at least, contradict this (see
below). The present bishop is Julius Mauritius Abbet, b. 12
Sept., 1845, appointed auxiliary bishop cum jure successionis 1
Oct., 1895, succeeded to the see 26 Feb., 1901.
STATISTICS
The boundaries of the Diocese of Valais have hardly been changed
since it was founded; the diocese includes the Upper Rhone
Valley, that is, the Canton of Valais, with exception of the
exempt Abbey of Saint-Maurice, and of the Catholic inhabitants
of Saint-Gingolph, who belong to the French Diocese of Annecy;
it also includes the parishes of Bex and Aigle that belong to
the Canton of Vaud. In 1911 the diocese had 11 deaneries, 125
parishes, 70 chaplaincies, 208 secular priests, 135 regular
priests and professed, about 120,000 Catholics. Nearly 30 per
cent of the population of the diocese speak German, and nearly
65 percent French; the language of the rest of the population is
Italian. The bishop is elected by the denominationally mixed
Great Council from a list of four candidates presented by the
cathedral chapter, and the election is laid before the pope for
confirmation. The cathedral chapter consists of ten canons; in
addition five rectors are included among the cathedral clergy.
The clergy are trained at a seminary for priests at Sion that
has six ecclesiastical professors and twelve resident students;
there are also six theological students studying at the
University of Innsbruck. The religious orders of men in the
diocese are: Augustinian Canons, with houses on the Great St.
Bernard, the Simplon, and at Martigny, containing altogether 45
priests, 6 professed and 7 lay-brothers; Capuchins, at Sion and
Saint-Maurice, numbering 22 priests, 6 students of theology, and
9 lay-brothers. The exempt abbey of Augustinian Canons at
Saint-Maurice contains 46 priests, 9 professed and lay-
brothers. The orders and congregations of nuns in the diocese
are: Bernardines at Colombay; Hospital Sisters at Sion; Sisters
of St. Vincent de Paul at Saint-Maurice; Franciscan Nuns, at the
same place; Sisters of Charity of the Holly Cross at Sion, Leuk,
and Leukerbad; Ursuline Nuns at Sion and Brieg.
Briguet, Vallesia christ. seu dioec. Sedunensis hist.
sacra (Sion, 1744); Boccard, Hist. du Valais (Geneva, 1844);
Burgener, Die Heiligen des walliser Landes (Einsiedeln, 1857);
Gremaud, CAtalogue des eveques de Sion (Lausanne, 1864); Idem,
Doc. relatifs `a l'hist. du Valais (Lausanne, 1875-84); Gay,
Hist. du Valais (Geneva, 1888-89); Idem, Melanges d'hist.
valaisanne (Geneva, 1891); Rameau, Le Valais hist. (Sion, 1891);
BUechi, Die kath. Kirche der Schweiz (Munich, 1902); Bourbon,
L'archeveque s. Vultchaire (Fribourg, 1900); Melanges d'hist. et
d'archeol. de la soc. helvetique de Saint-Maurice (1901);
Grenat, Hist. moderne du Valais 1536-1815 (Geneva, 1904);
Besson, Recherches sur les orig. des eveches de Geneve,
Lausanne, Sion, etc. (Paris, 1906); Status venerabilis cleri
dioec. Sedunen. (Sion, 1911); Blaetter aus der walliser Gesch.
(Sion, 1899-).
Joseph Lins
Sioux City
Sioux City
DIOCESE OF SIOUX CITY (SIOPOLITAN).
Erected 15 Jan., 1902, by Leo XIII. The establishment of this
diocese was provided for in the Bull appointing Most Rev. John
J. Keane, D.D., to the Archbishopric of Dubuque on 24 July,
1900. This provision was made on the occasion of that
appointment for the reason that the new diocese was taken
entirely from Archdiocese of Dubuque. It comprises twenty-four
counties in north-western Iowa, including a territory of 14,518
square miles. Sioux City is on the extreme limit of the western
boundary of Iowa, situated on the east bank of the Missouri
River, about one hundred miles north of Omaha. With the
exception of Des Moines, the capital, it is the largest and most
enterprising municipality in the State of Iowa, containing a
population of between fifty and sixty thousand. It is in the
midst of a large and rich agricultural country, and relies
chiefly on the products of the soil, of which the staple article
is corn; consequently grain-packing is the chief industry of
Sioux City. The Catholic population of the diocese is almost
sixty thousand. It has 138 churches, including missions, 122
priests, of whom 6 are religious (4 Friars Minor and 2 Fathers
of the Sacred Heart); 53 parochial schools, with 4 hospitals; 4
academies; 2 schools of domestic science; an orphanage, a Good
Shepherd home, an infant asylum, a home for the aged, and a
working girls' home. There are 7327 children in the parish
schools, and nearly 8000 under Catholic care. The composition of
the Catholic population of the diocese is English-speaking and
German. These form the principal elements of the Church's
membership here, and are almost equally divided in numbers. A
characteristic feature of western Catholicism is manifest here
as in other western dioceses, that is the ardent desire of the
people for parochial schools wherever it is possible. Out of the
10,000 children of school age (i.e. under seventeen years) in
the diocese, three-fourths are in parochial schools. The
following orders conduct schools and charitable institutions in
the diocese: Sisters of Charity B.V.M., Sisters of Christian
Charity, Sisters of St. Dominic, Sister of St. Francis (Dubuque,
Iowa), Franciscan Sisters (Clinton, Iowa), Franciscan Sisters of
Perpetual Adoration, School Sisters of St. Francis, Presentation
Nuns, Servants of Mary, Sister of St. Benedict, Sisters of
Mercy, Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
Since its establishment nine years ago, the diocese is
thoroughly organized and has been constantly expanding by the
erection of churches, schools, and expanding by the erection of
churches, schools, and other institutions. The present bishop,
the Right Reverend Philip J. Garrigan, D.D., first bishop of the
diocese, was born in Ireland in the early forties, came to this
country with his parents, and received his elementary education
in the public schools of Lowell, Mass. He pursued his classical
course at St. Charles's College, Ellicott City, Maryland, and
courses of philosophy and theology at the Provincial Seminary of
New York at Troy, where he was ordained on 11 June, 1870. After
a short term as curate of St. John's Church, Worcester,
Massachusetts, he was appointed director of the Troy seminary
for three years; and was for fourteen years afterwards pastor of
St. Bernard's Church, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. In the fall of
1888 he was appointed first vice-rector of the Catholic
University at Washington, D. C., which position he also held for
fourteen years. He was named Bishop of Sioux City on 21 March,
1902, and consecrated at the see of his home diocese,
Springfield, Massachusetts, on 25 May of the same year, by the
Right Rev. T.D. Beaven, and on 18 June following took possession
of his see.
PHILIP J. GARRIGAN
Sioux Falls
Sioux Falls
DIOCESE OF SIOUX FALLS (SIOUXORMENSIS).
Suffragan of St. Paul, comprises all that part of the State of
South Dakota east of the Missouri River, an area of 34,861
square miles. The western portion of the state, forming the
present Diocese of Lead, was detached from the Diocese of Sioux
Falls, 8 August, 1902. The early history of religion in South
Dakota (until 1879) must be sought for in the histories
respectively of St. Paul, Dubuque, and Nebraska. The first Mass
celebrated in South Dakota was in 1842, in Brown County, by the
late Monsignor Ravoux of St. Paul on his first visit to the
Sioux Indians; and the first church erected was in 1867, by the
late Father Pierre Boucher, who was sent by Bishop Grace of St.
Paul to Jefferson, Union County, to attend the Catholics
scattered about that centre. In August, 1879, the Vicariate
Apostolic of Dakota, whose boundaries corresponded with the ten
existing civil boundaries of the newly formed Territory of
Dakota, was established, and the Right Reverend Martin Marty,
Abbot of St. Meinrad's Benedictine Abbey, Indiana, nominated
Bishop of Tiberias and vicar Apostolic of the new district.
Bishop Marty was consecrated in the Church of St. Ferdinand,
Ferdinand, Indiana, 1 February, 1880, by the Right Reverend
Francis Silas Chatard, the present Bishop of Indianapolis. The
vicariate was an immense district to govern (149,112 square
miles) with scarcely any mode of travelling, except by the
primitive ox or mule teams. A few miles of railroad existed from
Sioux City to Yankton. The new vicar Apostolic went directly to
Yankton, where he took up his residence. He found 12 priests
administering to a scattered Catholic population of less than
14,000 souls and 20 churches. Many and heroic were the hardships
endured by both bishop and priests. At the close of 1881 the
number of priests increased to 37, the number of churches to 43
with 35 stations. There were 3 convents, 2 academies for young
ladies, 4 parochial schools for the white and 4 schools for the
Indian children, while the Catholic population, including 700
Indians, numbered 15,800 souls. The decade beginning with 1880,
witnessed a wonderful development and the population increased
from 135,180 to 250,000. The statistics at the end of 1883 show
45 priests, 82 churches, 67 stations, 4 convents, 4 academies,
12 parochial schools, 6 Indian schools and a Catholic
population, including 1,600 Indians, of 25,600 souls. The
Territory of Dakota was divided by Act of Congress, 22 February,
1889, and the two states, North and South Dakota, were admitted
to the Union, 2 November, 1889. The same month witnessed the
ecclesiastical division of the vicariate, and two new dioceses
were formed, Sioux Falls (South Dakota) with Bishop Marty its
first bishop; and Jamestown (North Dakota), now Fargo, with
Bishop Shanley (d. July, 1909) its first incumbent. In 1894
Bishop Marty was transferred to the Diocese of St. Cloud,
Minnesota, where he died 19 September, 1896.
The efforts of Bishop Marty were crowned with marvellous
success. He devoted himself especially to the Indian race. He
spoke their language and translated hymns and prayers into their
tongue. The second and present (1911) Bishop of Sioux Falls, the
Right Rev. Thomas O'Gorman, was born at Boston, Massachusetts, 1
May, 1843, he moved with his parents to St. Paul, and was one of
the first two students selected for the priesthood by Bishop
Cretin, the other was Archbishop Ireland. Having pursued his
ecclesiastical studies in France, he returned to St. Paul, where
he was ordained priest, 5 November, 1865. He was pastor in turn
of Rochester and Faribault, Minn., and first president and
professor of dogmatic theology at St. Thomas' College, St. Paul.
In 1890 he was appointed Professor of Church History in the
Catholic University, Washington, D. C., was consecrated in St.
Patrick's Church, Washington, D. C. (19 April, 1896) by Cardinal
Satolli, then Apostolic delegate to this country, and on 1 May,
1896, was installed in the pro-cathedral of his episcopal see.
The statistics of the diocese then showed 51 secular and 14
regular priests, 50 churches with resident priests, 61 missions
with churches, 100 stations, 10 chapels, 14 parochial schools,
61 Indian schools, 2 orphanages, and l hospital. There were 3
communities of men and 6 of women, while the Catholic
population, white and Indian, was estimated at 30,000 souls.
Bishop O'Gorman infused new life into the diocese. The
population increased so rapidly that in 1902 the Diocese of Lead
was erected. The statistics of the diocese (1911) are in
priests, secular 102, regular 13; students 10; churches with
resident priests, 91; missions with churches, 70; stations, 23;
chapels, 13; parochial schools, 23 with 2,500 children in
attendance; hospitals, 4. There are 3 communities of men:
Benedictines, Eudists, and the Clerics of St. Viateur. The
communities of women are: Dominican Sisters; Presentation
Sisters; Benedictine Sisters; Sisters of the Third Order of St.
Francis; School Sisters of St. Francis, and the Sisters of
Charity of St. Louis. Columbus College at Chamberlain, in charge
of the Clerics of St. Viateur is an institution of great
promise. The Catholic population, including 500 Indians, is
50,000. In the vicariate Apostolic of thirty-one years ago,
where there were only 1 bishop and 12 priests, there are now
(1911) 4 bishops and 284 priests.
DANIEL F. DESMOND
Sioux Indians
Sioux Indians
The largest and most important Indian tribe north of Mexico,
with the single exception of the Ojibwa (Chippewa), who,
however, lack the solidarity of the Sioux, being widely
scattered on both sides of the international boundary, while the
Sioux are virtually all within the United States and up to a
comparatively recent period kept up close connection among the
various bands.
NAME AND AFFILIATION
The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French
spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their
eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux,
signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies,
as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the
Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been
superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain
etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota,
according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota,
Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their
ancient area, including those of two great states.
Linguistically the Sioux are of the great Siouan stock, to which
they have given name and of which they themselves now constitute
nearly three-fourths. Other cognate tribes are the Assiniboin,
Crow, Hidatsa, or Minitari, Mandan, Winnebago, Iowa, Omaha,
Ponca, Oto, Missouri, Kaw, Osage, and Quapaw, all excepting the
Winnebago living west of the Mississippi; together with a number
of tribes formerly occupying territories in Mississippi and the
central regions of the Carolinas and Virginia, all now virtually
extinct, excepting a handful of Catawba in South Carolina.
Linguistic and traditionary evidence indicate this eastern
region as the original home of the stock, although the period
and causes of the westward migration remain a matter of
conjecture.
The Sioux language is spoken in three principal dialects, viz.
Santee (pronounced Sahntee), or eastern; Yankton, or middle; and
Teton, or western, differing chiefly in the interchange of d, n,
and l, as indicated in the various forms of the tribal name. The
Assiniboin are a seceded branch of the Yankton division, having
separated from the parent tribe at some time earlier than 1640.
HISTORY
When and why the Sioux removed from their original home in the
East, or by what route they reached the upper Mississippi
country, are unknown. When first noticed in history, about 1650,
they centered about Mille Lac and Leech Lake, toward the heads
of the Mississippi, in central Minnesota, having their eastern
frontier within a day's march of Lake Superior. From this
position they were gradually driven by the pressure, from the
east, of the advancing Ojibwa, who were earlier in obtaining
firearms, until nearly the whole nation had removed to the
Minnesota and upper Red River, in turn driving before them the
Cheyenne, Omaha, and other tribes. On reaching the buffalo
plains and procuring horses, supplemented soon thereafter by
firearms, they rapidly overran the country to the west and
southwest, crossing the Missouri perhaps about 1750, and
continuing on to the Black Hills and the Platte until checked by
the Pawnee, Crow, and other tribes. At the beginning of treaty
relations in 1805 they were the acknowledged owners of most of
the territory extending from central Wisconsin, across the
Mississippi and Missouri, to beyond the Black Hills, and from
the Canada boundary to the North Platte, including all of
Southern Minnesota, with considerable portions of Wisconsin and
Iowa, most of North Dakota and South Dakota, Northern Nebraska,
and much of Montana and Wyoming. The boundaries of all that
portion lying east of the Dakotas were defined by the great
inter-tribal treaty of Prairie du Chien in 1825 and a
supplemental treaty at the same place in 1830. At this period
the Minnesota region was held by the various Santee bands;
Eastern Dakota and a small part of Iowa were claimed by the
Yankton and their cousins the Yanktonai; while all the Sioux
territory west of the Missouri was held by bands of the great
Teton division, constituting three-fifths of the whole nation.
Under the name of Naduesiu the Sioux are first mentioned by
Father Paul le Jeune in the Jesuit Relation of 1640, apparently
on the information of that pioneer western explorer, Jean
Nicolet, the first white man known to have set foot in
Wisconsin, probably in 1634-5. In 1655-6 two other famous French
explorers, Radisson and Groseilliers, spent some time with them
in their own country, about the western border of Wisconsin. At
that time the Sioux were giving shelter to a band of refugee
Hurons fleeing before the Iroquois. They were rated as
possessing thirty villages, and were the terror of all the
surrounding tribes by reason of their number and prowess,
although admittedly less cruel. Fathers Allouez and Marquette,
from their mission of St. Esprit, established at Lapointe (now
Bayfield, Wis.) on Lake Superior in 1665, entered into friendly
relations with the Sioux, which continued until 1671, when the
latter, provoked by insults from the eastern tribes, returned
Marquette's presents, declared war against their hereditary
foes, and compelled the abandonment of the mission. In 1674 they
sent a delegation to Sault Ste. Marie to arrange peace through
the good offices of the resident Jesuit missionary, Father
Gabriel Druillettes, who already had several of the tribe under
instruction in his house, but the negotiations were brought to
an abrupt end by a treacherous attack made upon the Sioux while
seated in council in the mission church, resulting in the
massacre of the ambassadors after a desperate encounter, and the
burning of the church, which was fired over their heads by the
Ojibwa to dislodge them.
The tribal war went on, but the Sioux kept friendship with the
French traders, who by this time had reached the Mississippi. In
1680 one of their war parties, descending the Mississippi
against the Illinois, captured the Recollect Father Louis
Hennepin with two companions and brought them to their villages
at the head of the river, where they held them, more as guests
than prisoners, until released on the arrival of the trader, Du
Luth, in the fall. While thus in custody Father Hennepin
observed their customs, made some study of the language,
baptized a child and attempted some religious instruction,
explored a part of Minnesota, and discovered and named St.
Anthony's Falls. In 1683 Nicholas Perrot established a post at
the mouth of the Wisconsin. In 1689 he established Fort Perrot
near the lower end of Lake Pepin, on the Minnesota side, the
first post within the Sioux territory, and took formal
possession of their country for France. The Jesuit Father Joseph
Marest, officially designated "Missionary to the Nadouesioux",
was one of the witnesses at the ceremony and was again with the
tribe some twelve years later. Another post was built by Pierre
LeSueur, near the present Red Wing about 1693, and in 1695 a
principal chief of the tribe accompanied him to Montreal to meet
the governor, Frontenac. By this time the Sioux had a number of
guns and were beginning to wage aggressive warfare toward the
west, driving the Cheyenne, Omaha, and Oto down upon the
Missouri and pushing out into the buffalo plains. During
Frontenac's administration mission work languished owing to his
bitter hostility to missionaries, especially the Jesuits.
About the year 1698, through injudiciously assisting the Sioux
against the Foxes, the French became involved in a tedious
forty-years' war with the latter tribe which completely
paralyzed trade on the upper Mississippi and ultimately ruined
the Foxes. Before its end the Sioux themselves turned against
the French and gave refuge to the defeated Foxes. In 1700
LeSueur had built Fort L'Huillier on the Blue Earth River near
the present Mankato, Minnesota. In 1727, an ineffective peace
having been made, the Jesuit Fathers, Ignatius Guignas and
Nicolas de Gonnor, again took up work among the Sioux at the new
Fort Beauharnais on Lake Pepin. Although driven out for a time
by the Foxes, they returned and continued with the work some ten
years, until the Sioux themselves became hostile. In 1736 the
Sioux massacred an entire exploring party of twenty-one persons
under command of the younger Verendrye at the Lake of the Woods,
just beyond the northern (international) Minnesota boundary.
Among those killed was the Jesuit father, Jean-Pierre Aulneau.
In 1745-6, the Foxes having been finally crushed, De Lusignan
again arranged peace with the Sioux, and between them and the
Ojibwa, and four Sioux chiefs returned with him to Montreal. On
the fall of Canada the Sioux, in 1763, sent delegates to the
English post at Green Bay with proffers of friendship and a
request for traders. They were described as "certainly the
greatest nation of Indians ever yet found", holding all other
Indians as "their slaves or dogs". Two thousand of their
warriors now had guns, while the other and larger portion still
depended upon the bow, in the use of which, and in dancing, they
excelled the other tribes.
In the winter of 1766-7 the American traveller, Jonathan Carver,
spent several months with the Santee visiting their
burial-ground and sacred cave near the present St. Paul, and
witnessing men and women gashing themselves in frenzied grief at
their bereavement. Soon after this period the eastern Sioux
definitively abandoned the Mille Lac and Leech Lake country to
their enemies the Ojibwa, with whom the hereditary war still
kept up. The final engagement in this upper region occurred in
1768 when a great canoe fleet of Sioux, numbering perhaps five
hundred warriors, while descending the Mississippi from a
successful raid upon the Ojibwa, was ambushed near the junction
of Crow Wing River and entirely defeated by a much smaller force
of the latter tribe. In 1775 peace was again made between the
two tribes through the efforts of the English officials in order
to secure their alliance in the coming Revolutionary struggle.
The peace lasted until the close of the Revolutionary War, in
which both tribes furnished contingents against the American
frontier, after which the warriors returned to their homes, and
the old feud was resumed. In the meantime the Teton Sioux,
pressing westward, were gradually pushing the Arikara (Ree) up
the Missouri, and by acquiring horses from the plains tribes had
become metamorphosed from canoe men and gatherers of wild rice
into an equestrian race of nomad buffalo hunters.
Some years after the close of the Revolution, perhaps about
1796, French traders in the American interest ascended the
Missouri from St. Louis and established posts among the Yankton
and Teton. In 1804 the first American exploring expedition,
under Captains Lewis and Clark, ascended the river, holding
councils and securing the allegiance of the Sioux and other
tribes, and then crossing the mountains and descending the
Columbia to the Pacific, returning over nearly the same route in
1806. As a result of this acquaintance the first Sioux (Yankton)
delegation visited Washington in the latter year. At the same
time, 1805-6, Lieutenant Zebulon Pike ascended the Mississippi
on a similar errand to the Santee Sioux and other tribes of that
region. In this he was successful and on 23 September, 1805,
negotiated the first treaty of the Sioux with the United States,
by which they ceded lands in the vicinity of the present St.
Paul for the establishment of military posts, at the same time
giving up their English flags and medals and accepting American
ones. Up to this period and for some years later the rapidly
diverging bands of the east and west still held an annual
renunion east of the lower James River in eastern South Dakota.
In 1807 Manuel Lisa, founder of the American Fur Company, "the
most active and indefatigable trader that St. Louis ever
produced" (Chittenden), established headquarters among the
Sioux, at Cedar Island, below the present Pierre, S.D., later
moving down to about the present Chamberlain. Lisa was a
Spaniard, and like his French associates, Chouteau, Menard, and
Trudeau, was a Catholic. At his several trading posts among the
Teton and Yankton Sioux, and the Omaha lower down the river, he
showed the Indians how to plant gardens and care for cattle and
hogs, besides setting up blacksmith shops for their benefit,
without charge, and caring for their aged and helpless, so that
it was said that he was better loved by the Sioux than any other
white man of his time. Being intensely American in feeling, he
was appointed first government agent for the upper Missouri
River tribes, and by his great influence with them held them
steady for the United States throughout the War of 1812,
notwithstanding that most of the eastern, or Santee, Sioux,
through the efforts of Tecumtha and a resident British trader,
Robert Dickson, declared for England and furnished a contingent
against Fort Meigs. Lisa died in 1820. At the close of the war,
by a series of five similar treaties made 15 July, 1815, at
Portage des Sioux, above St. Louis, the various Sioux bands made
their peace with the United States and finally acknowledged its
sovereignty. Other late hostile tribes made peace at the same
time. this great treaty gathering, the most important ever held
with the tribes of the Middle West, marks the beginning of their
modern history. In 1820 Fort Snelling was built at the present
Minneapolis to control the Santee Sioux and Ojibwa, an agency
being also established at the same time. In 1825 another great
treaty gathering was convened at Prairie du Chien for the
delimitation of tribal boundaries to put an end to inter-tribal
wars, and clear the way for future land cessions. At this
period, and for years after, the Sioux led all other tribes in
the volume of their fur trade, consisting chiefly of buffalo
robes and beaver skins.
With the establishment of permanent government relations regular
mission work began. In 1834 the brothers Samuel and Gideon Pond
for the Congregationalists, located among the Santee at Lake
Calhoun, near the present St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1835 the same
denomination established other missions at Lake Harriet and
Lac-qui-Parle, Minnesota, under Rev. J.D. Stevens and Thomas
Williamson respectively. In 1837 Williamson was joined by Rev.
Stephen Riggs and his son Alfred. In 1852 the two last-named
missions were removed to the upper Minnesota in consequence of a
treaty cession. All of these workers are known for their
linguistic contributions as well as for their missionary
service. In 1837 a Lutheran mission was established at Red Wing
and continued for some years. The successful establishment of
these missions was due chiefly to the encouragement and active
aid afforded by Joseph Renville, a remarkable half-breed, who
stood high in the respect and affection of the eastern Sioux.
Born in the wilderness in 1779 of an Indian mother, he had been
taken to Canada, when a small boy, by his French father, a noted
trader, and placed under the care of a Catholic priest, from
whom he acquired some knowledge of French and of the Christian
religion. The death of his father a few years later and his
consequent return to the Sioux country put an end to his
educational opportunity, but the early impression thus made was
never effaced. On coming to manhood and succeeding to his
father's business he sent across the ocean, probably through
Dickson, the British trader, for a French Bible (which, when it
came, was Protestant) and then hired a clerk who could read it
to him. On the establishment of the post at Prairie du Chien he
brought down his Indian wife and had her regularly married to
him by a Catholic priest, he himself having previously
instructed her in religion as well as he could. When the
Congregationalists arrived he welcomed them as bringing
Christianity, even though not of the form of his childhood
teacher. He died in 1846.
In 1841 Father Augustine Ravoux began work among the Santee in
the neighbourhood of Fort Snelling, near which Father Galtier
had just built a log chapel of St. Paul, around which grew the
modern city. Applying himself to the study of the language, in
which he soon became proficient, Father Ravoux in 1843 repaired
to Prairie du Chien, and there with his own hands printed a
small devotional work, "Katolik Wocekiye Wowapi Kin", which is
still used as a mission manual. He continued with the tribe for
several years, extending his ministrations also to the Yankton,
until recalled to parish work. As early at least as 1840 the
great Jesuit apostle of the North-West, Father P.J. De Smet, had
visited the bands along the Missouri River, where Father
Christian Hoecken had preceded him in 1837, instructing adults
and baptizing children. Father De Smet made several other brief
stops later on his way to and from the Rocky Mountain missions,
and in the summer of 1848 spent several months in the camps of
the Brulee and Ogalala, whom he found well disposed to
Christianity. In 1850 Father Hoecken was again with the Yankton
and Teton, but the design to establish a permanent mission was
frustrated by his untimely death from cholera, 19 June, 1851. In
the same summer Father De Smet attended the great inter-tribal
gathering at Fort Laramie, where for several weeks he preached
daily to the Sioux and other tribes, baptizing over fifteen
hundred children. From that period until his death in 1872 a
large portion of his time was given to the western Sioux, among
whom his influence was so great that he was several times called
in by the Government to assist in treaty negotiations, notably
in the great peace treaty of 1868.
In 1837 the Sioux sold all of their remaining territory east of
the Mississippi. In the winter of 1837-8 smallpox, introduced
from a passing steamer, swept over all the tribes of the upper
Missouri River, killing perhaps 30,000 Indians, of whom a large
proportion were Sioux. About the same time the war with the
Ojibwa on the eastern frontier broke out again with greater fury
than ever. In a battle near the present Stillwater, Minnesota,
in June, 1839, some 50 Ojibwa were slain and shortly afterward a
Sioux raiding party surprised an Ojibwa camp in the absence of
the warriors and brought away 91 scalps. In 1851 the various
Santee bands sold all their remaining lands in Minnesota and
Iowa, excepting a twenty-mile strip along the upper Minnesota
River, Although there were then four missions among the Santee,
the majority of the Indians were reported to have "an inveterate
hatred" of Christianity. In March, 1857, on some trifling
provocation, a small band of renegade Santee, under an outlawed
chief, Inkpaduta, "Scarlet Point," attacked the scattered
settlements about Spirit Lake, on the Iowa-Minnesota border,
burning houses, massacring about fifty persons, and carrying off
several women, two of whom were killed later, the others being
rescued by the Christian Indians. Inkpaduta escaped to take an
active part in all the Sioux troubles for twenty years
thereafter. In 1858 the Yankton Sioux sold all their lands in
South Dakota, excepting the present Yankton reservation. The
famous pipestone quarry in southwestern Minnesota, whence the
Sioux for ages had procured the red stone from which their pipes
were carved, was also permanently reserved to this Indian
purpose. In 1860 the first Episcopalian work was begun among the
(Santee) Sioux by Rev. Samuel D. Hinman.
In 1862 occurred the great "Minnesota outbreak" and massacre,
involving nearly all the Santee bands, brought about by
dissatisfaction at the confiscation of a large proportion of the
treaty funds to satisfy traders' claims, and aggravated by a
long delay in the annuity issue. The weakening of the local
garrisons and the general unrest consequent upon the Civil War
also encouraged to revolt. The trouble began 2 August with an
attack upon the agency store-house at Redwood, where five
thousand Indians were awaiting the distribution of the delayed
annuity supplies. The troops were overpowered and the commissary
goods seized, but no other damage attempted. On 17 August a
small party of hunters, being refused food at a settler's cabin,
massacred the family and fled with the news to the camp of
Little Crow, where a general massacre of all the whites and
Christian Indians was at once resolved upon. Within a week
almost every farm cabin and small settlement in Southern
Minnesota and along the adjoining border was wiped out of
existence and most of the inhabitants massacred, in many cases
with devilish barbarities, excepting such as could escape to
Fort Ridgely at the lower end of the reservation. The
missionaries were saved by the faithful heroism of the Christian
Indians, who, as in 1857, stood loyally by the Government.
Determined attacks were made under Little Crow upon Fort Ridgely
(20-21 August) and New Ulm (22 August), the latter defended by a
strong volunteer force under Judge Charles Flandrau. Both
attacks were finally repulsed. On 2 Sept. a force of 1500
regulars and volunteers under Colonel (afterwards General) H. H.
Sibley defeated the hostiles at Birch Coulee and again on 23
September at Wood Lake. Most of the hostiles now surrendered,
the rest fleeing in small bands beyond the reach of pursuit.
Three hundred prisoners were condemned to death by court
martial, but the number was cut down by President Lincoln to
thirty-eight, who were hanged at Mankato, 26 December, 1862.
They were attended by Revs. Riggs and Williamson and by Father
Ravoux, but although the other missionaries had been twenty-five
years stationed with the tribe and spoke the language fluently,
thirty-tree of the whole number elected to die in the Catholic
Church, two of the remaining five rejecting all Christian
ministration. Three years later Father Ravoux again stood on the
scaffold with two condemned warriors of the tribe.
Two months after the outbreak Congress declared the Santee
treaties abrogated and the Minnesota reservations forfeited. One
part of the fugitives trying to escape to the Yanktonai was
overtaken and defeated with great loss by Sibley near Big Mound,
North Dakota, 24 July, 1863. The survivors fled to the Teton
beyond the Missouri or took refuge in Canada, where they are
still domiciled. On 3 Sept. General Sully struck the main
hostile camp under Inkpaduta at Whitestone Hill, west of
Ellendale, N.D., killing 300 and capturing nearly as many more.
On 28 July, 1864, General Sully delivered the final blow to the
combined hostile force, consisting of Santee, Yanktonai, and
some northern Teton, at Kildeer Mountain on the Little Missouri.
The prisoners and others of the late hostile bands were finally
settled on two reservations established for the purpose, viz.
the (Lower) Yanktonai at Crow Creek, S.D., and the Santee at
Santee, northeastern Nebraska. Here they still remain, being now
well advanced in civilization and Christianity, and fairly
properous. The outbreak had cost the lives of nearly 1000
whites, of whom nearly 700 perished in the first few days of the
massacre. The Indian loss was about double, falling almost
entirely upon the Santee. Pananapapi (Strike-the-Ree), head
chief of the 3000 Yankton, and a Catholic, had steadily held his
people loyal and the great Brule and Ogalala bands of the Teton,
13,000 strong, had remained neutral. In October, 1865, at old
Fort Sully (near Pierre), S.D., a general treaty of peace was
made with the Sioux, and one Teton band, the Lower Brule, agreed
to come upon a reservation. The majority of the great Teton
division, however, comprising the whole strength of the nation
west of the Missouri, refused to take part.
In the meantime serious trouble had been brewing in the West.
With the discovery of gold in California in 1849 and the
consequent opening of an emigrant trail along the North Platte
and across the Rocky Mountains, the Indians became alarmed at
the disturbance to their buffalo herds, upon which they depended
for their entire subsistence. The principal complainants were
the Brule and Ogalala Sioux. For the protection of the emigrants
in 1849 the Government bought and garrisoned the American Fur
Company post of Fort Laramie on the upper North Platte, in
Wyoming, later making it also an agency headquarters. In
September, 1851, a great gathering of nearly all the tribes and
bands of the Northern Plains was held at Fort Laramie, and a
treaty was negotiated by which they came to an agreement in
regard to their rival territorial claims, pledged peace among
themselves and with the whites, and promised not to disturb the
trail on consideration of a certain annual payment. Father De
Smet attended throughout the council, teaching and baptizing,
and gives an interesting account of the gathering, the largest
ever held with the Plains Indians. The treaty was not ratified
and had no permanent effect. On 17 August, 1854, while the
Indians were camped about the post awaiting the distribution of
the annuity goods, occurred the "Fort Laramie Massacre", by
which Lieutenant Grattan and an entire detachment of 29 soldiers
lost their lives while trying to arrest some Brules who had
killed and eaten an emigrant's cow. From all the evidence the
conflict was provoked by the officer's own indiscretion. The
Indians then took forcible possession of the annuity goods and
left without making any attempt upon the fort or garrison. The
Brule Sioux were now declared hostile, and Gen. W.S. Harney was
sent against them. On 3 September, with 1200 men, he came upon
their camp at Ash Hollow, Western Nebraska, and while pretending
to parley on their proffer of surrender, suddenly attacked them,
killing 136 Indians and destroying the entire camp outfit.
Late in 1863 the Ogalala and Brule under their chiefs, Red Cloud
(Makhpiya-luta) and Spotted Tail (Shinte-galeshka) respectively,
became actively hostile, inflamed by reports of the Santee
outbreak and the Civil War in the South. They were joined by the
Cheyenne and for two years all travel across the plains was
virtually suspended. In March, 1865, they were roused to
desperation by the proclamation of two new roads to be opened
through their best hunting rounds to reach the new gold fields
of Montana. Under Red Cloud's leadership they notified the
Government that they would allow no new roads or garrison posts
to be established in their country, and carried on the war on
this basis with such determination that by treaty at Fort
Laramie through a peace commission in April-May, 1868, the
Government actually agreed to close the "Montana road" that had
been opened north from Laramie, and to abandon the three posts
that had been established to protect it. Red Cloud himself
refused to sign until after the troops had been withdrawn. The
treaty left the territory south of the North Platte open to road
building, recognized all north of the North Platte and east of
the Bighorn Mountains as unceded Indian territory, and
established the "Great Sioux Reservation", nearly equivalent to
all of South Dakota west of the Missouri. Provision was made for
an agency on the Missouri River and the inauguration of regular
governmental civilizing work. In consideration of thus giving up
their old freedom the Indians were promised, besides the free
aid of blacksmiths, doctors, a saw mill, etc., a complete suit
of clothing yearly for thirty years to every individual of the
bands concerned, based on the actual yearly census. Among the
official witnesses were Rev. Hinman, The Episcopalian
missionary, and Father De Smet. This treaty brought the whole of
the Sioux nation under agency restriction, and with its
ratification in February, 1869, the five years' war came to a
close.
In this war Red Cloud had been the principal leader, Spotted
Tail having been won to friendship earlier through the kindness
extended by the officers at Fort Laramie on the occasion of the
death of his daughter, who was buried there with Christian rites
at her own request. The Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho also acted
with the Sioux. The chief fighting centered around Fort Kearney,
Wyoming, which Red Cloud himself held under repeated siege, and
near which on 21 December, 1866, occurred the "Fetterman
Massacre", when an entire detachment of 80 men under Captain
Fetterman was exterminated by an overwhelming force of Indians.
By treaties in 1867 reservations had been established at Lake
Traverse, S.D. and at Fort Totten, N.D., for the Sisseton and
Wahpeton Santee and the Cuthead Yanktonai, most of whom had been
concerned in the Minnesota outbreak. In 1870 a part of the
Christian Santee separated from their kinsmen in Nebraska and
removed to Flandreau, S.D., and became citizens. In 1871,
despite the protest of Red Cloud and other leading chiefs, the
Northern Pacific railway was constructed along the south bank of
the Yellowstone and several new posts built for its protection,
and war was on again with the Teton Sioux, Cheyenne, and part of
the Arapaho. Several skirmishes occurred, and in 1873 General
G.A. Custer was ordered to Dakota. In the next year, while
hostilities were still in progress, Custer made an exploration
of the Black Hills, South Dakota, and reported gold. Despite the
treaty and the military, there was at once a great rush of
miners and others into the Hills. The Indians refusing to sell
on any terms offered, the military patrol was withdrawn, and
mining towns at once sprang up all through the mountains. Indian
hunting by agents' permission in the disputed territory were
ordered to report at their agencies by 31 January, 1876, or be
considered hostile, but even the runners who carried the message
were unable to return, by reason of the severity of the winter,
until after war had been actually declared. This is commonly
known as the "Custer War" from its central event, 25 June, 1876,
the massacre of General Custer and every man of a detachment of
the Seventh Cavalry, numbering 204 in all, in an attack upon the
main camp of the hostile Sioux and Cheyenne, on the Little
Bighorn River in southeastern Montana. On that day and the next,
in the same vicinity, other detachments under Reno and Benteen
sustained desperate conflicts with the Indians, with the loss of
some sixty more killed. The Indians, probably numbering at least
2500 warriors with their families, finally withdrew on the
approach of Generals Terry and Gibbons from the north. The
principal Sioux commanders were Crazy Horse and Gall, although
Sitting Bull was also present. Red Cloud and Spotted Tail had
remained at their agencies.
Several minor engagements later in the year resulted in the
surrender and return of most of the hostiles to the reservation,
while Sitting Bull and Gall and their immediate following
escaped into Canada (June, 1877). by a series of treaties
negotiated 23 September-27 October, 1876, the Sioux surrendered
the whole of the Black Hills country and the western outlet. On
7 September, 1877, Crazy Horse, who had come in with his band
some months before, was killed in a conflict with the guard at
Fort Robinson, Nebraska. In the same month the last hostiles
surrendered. Soon after the treaty a large delegation visited
Washington, following which event the Red Cloud (Ogalala) and
Spotted Tail (Brulé) agencies were permanently
established in 1878 at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, S.D.,
respectively. This date may be considered to mark the beginning
of civilization in these two powerful bands. In 1881 all the
late hostiles in Canada came in and surrendered. Sitting Bull
and his immediate followers, after being held in confinement for
two years, were allowed to return to their homes on Standing
Rock reservation. On 5 August, 1881, Spotted Tail was killed by
a rival chief. On 29 July, 1888, Strike-the-Ree, the famous
Catholic chief of the Yankton, died at the age of 84.
In the allotment of Indian agencies to the management of the
various religious denominations, in accord with President
Grant's "peace policy" in 1870, only two of the eleven Sioux
agencies were assigned to the Catholics, namely, Standing Rock
and Devil's Lake, notwithstanding that, with the exception of a
portion of the Santee and a few of the Yankton, the only
missionaries the tribe had ever known from Allouez to De Smet
had been Catholic, and most of the resident whites and
mixed-bloods were of Catholic ancestry. Santee, Flandreau, and
Sisseton (Lake Traverse) agencies of the Santee division were
assigned to the Presbyterians, who had already been continuously
at work among them for more than a generation. Yankton
reservation had been occupied jointly by Presbyterians and
Episcopalians in 1869, as was Cheyenne River reservation in
1873. Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Lower Brule and Crow Creek
reservations, comprising nearly one-half the tribe, were given
to the Episcopalians, who erected buildings between 1872 (Crow
Creek) and 1877 (Pine Ridge). At Devil's Lake an industrial
boarding school was completed and opened in 1874 in charge of
Benedictine Fathers and Grey Nun Sisters of Charity. At Standing
Rock a similar school was opened in 1877 in charge of
Benedictine priests and Sisters. Thus by 1878 regular mission
plants were in operation on every Sioux reservation. Other
Catholic foundations were begun at Crow Creek and Rosebud in
1886, at Pine Ridge in 1887, and at Cheyenne River in 1892. In
1887 the noted secular missionary priest, Father Francis M.J.
Craft, opened school at Standing Rock and later succeeded in
organizing in the tribe an Indian sisterhood which, however, was
refused full ecclesiastical recognition. In 1891 he removed with
his community to the Fort Berthold reservation, N.D., where for
some years the Sioux Indian Sisters proved valuable auxiliaries,
particularly in instructing the women and nursing the sick of
the confederated Grosventres, Arikara, and Mandan. Later on
several of them won commendation as volunteer nurses in Cuba
during the Spanish War. This zealous sisterhood is no longer in
existence. In 1889, after long and persistent opposition by the
older chiefs, the "Great Sioux Reservation" was cut in two and
reduced by about one half by a treaty cession which included
almost all territory between White and Cheyenne Rivers, S.D.,
and all north of Cheyenne river west of 102DEG. The ceded lands
were thrown open to settlement by proclamation in the next
spring, and were at once occupied by the whites. In the meantime
payment for the lands was delayed, the annuity goods failed to
arrive until the winter was nearly over, the crops had failed
through attendance of the Indians at the treaty councils in the
preceding spring, epidemic diseases were raging in the camps,
and as the final straw Congress, despite previous promise, cut
down the beef ration by over four million pounds on the ground
of the stipulated money payment, which, however, had not
arrived.
A year before rumours had come to the Sioux of a new Indian
Messiah arisen beyond the mountains to restore the old-time
Indian life, together with their departed friends, in a new
earth from which the whites should be excluded. Several tribes,
including the Sioux, sent delegates to the home of the Messiah,
in Western Nevada, to investigate the rumour. The first
delegation, as well as a second, confirmed the truth of the
report, and in the spring of 1890 the ceremonial "Ghost Dance",
intended to hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy, was
inaugurated at Pine Ridge. Because of its strong appeal to the
Indians under the existing conditions, the Dance soon spread
among other Teton reservations until the Indians were in a
frenzy of religious excitement. The newly-appointed agent at
Pine Ridge became frightened and called for troops, thus
precipitating the outbreak of 1890. By 1 December 3000 troops
were disposed in the neighbourhood of the western Sioux
reservations then under orders of General Nelson Miles. Leading
events of the outbreak were:
+ the killing of Sitting Bull, his son, and six others on 15
December, at his camp on Grand River, Standing Rock
reservation, while resisting arrest by the Indian police, six
of whom were killed in the encounter;
+ the flight of Sitting Bull's followers and others of Standing
Rock and Cheyenne River reservations into the Bad Lands of
western South Dakota where they joined other refugee
"hostiles" from Pine Ridge and Rosebud;
+ the fight at Wounded Knee Creek, twenty miles northeast of
Pine Ridge agency, 29 December, 1890, between a band of
surrendered hostiles under Big Foot and a detachment of the
Seventh Cavalry under Colonel Forsyth.
On 16 January, 1891, the hostiles surrendered to General Miles
at Pine Ridge, and the outbreak was at an end. With the
restoration of peace, grievances were adjusted and the work of
civilization resumed. Under provision of the general allotment
law of 1887 negotiations were concluded from time to time with
the various bands by which the size of the reservations was
still further curtailed, and lands allotted in severalty, until
now almost all of the Sioux Indians are individual owners and
well on the way to full citizenship. Indian dress and adornment
are nearly obsolete, together with the tipi and aboriginal
ceremonial, and the great majority are clothed in citizen's
dress, living in comfortable small houses with modern furniture,
and engaged in farming and stock raising. The death of the old
chief, Red Cloud, at Pine Ridge in 1909, removed almost the last
link binding the Sioux to their Indian past.
RELIGIOUS STATUS
In 1909 nearly 10,000 of the 25,000 Sioux within the United
States were officially reported as Christians. The proportion is
now probably at least one-half, of whom about half are Catholic,
the others being chiefly Episcopalian and Presbyterian. The
Catholic missions are:
+ Our Lady of Sorrows, Fort Totten, N.D. (Devil's Lake Res.),
Benedictine;
+ St. Elizabeth, Cannonball, N.D. (Standing Rock Res.),
Benedictine;
+ St. Peter, Fort Yates, N.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine;
+ St. James, Porcupine (Shields P. O.), N.D. (Standing Rock
Res.), Benedictine;
+ St. Benedict, Standing Rock Agency, S.D. (Standing Rock Res.),
Benedictine;
+ St. Aloysius, Standing Rock Agency, S.D., (Standing Rock
Res.), Benedictine;
+ St. Edward, Standing Rock Agency, S.D., (Standing Rock Res.),
Benedictine;
+ St. Bede, Standing Rock Agency, S.D. (Standing Rock Res.),
Benedictine;
+ Immaculate Conception, Stephan, S.D. (Crow Creek Res.),
Benedictine;
+ St. Matthew, Veblen Co. (Britton P.O.) S.D. (former Sisseton
Res.), secular;
+ Corpus Christi, Cheyenne River Agency, S.D. (Chey. R. Res.),
secular;
+ St. Francis, Rosebud, S.D. (Rosebud Res.), Jesuit;
+ Holy Rosary, Pine Ridge, S.D. (Pine Ridge Res.), Jesuit.
The two Jesuit missions maintain boarding-schools, and are
assisted by Franciscan Sisters. The Immaculate Conception
mission also maintains a boarding-school, with Benedictine
Sisters. At the Fort Totten mission a monthly paper, "Sina Sapa
Wocekiye Taeyanpaha" (Black-gown Prayer Herald), entirely in the
Sioux language, is published under the editorship of Father
Jerome Hunt, who has been with the mission from its foundation.
Notable events in the religious life of the tribe are the
Catholic Sioux congresses held in the summer of each year, one
in North and one in South Dakota, which are attended by many
high church dignitaries and mission workers and several
thousands of Catholic Indians. Of some 470 Christian Sioux in
Canada about one-fourth are Catholic, chiefly at Standing
Buffalo Reservation, Sask., where they are served from the
Oblate mission school at Qu'Appelle.
ORGANIZATION AND CULTURE
The Sioux were not a compact nation with centralized government
and supreme head chief, but were a confederacy of seven allied
sub-tribes speaking a common language, each with a recognized
head chief and each subdivided into bands or villages governed
by subordinate chiefs. The seven sub-tribes, from east to west,
were: (1) Mdewakantonwan (Mde-wakanton) Village (people) of the
Spirit Lake (i.e. Mille Lac); (2) Wakhpekute "Leaf Shooters";
(3) Wakhpetonwan (Wahpeton), "Village in the Leaves"; (4)
Sisitonwan (Sisseton), "Village of the Marsh"; (5) Ihanktonwan
(Yankton), "Village at the End"; (6) Ihanktonwanna (Yanktonai),
"Little Yankton"; (7) Titonwan (Teton), "Village of the
Prairie".
Of these, the first four, originally holding the heads of the
Mississippi, constitute the Isanti (Santee) or eastern,
dialectic group. The Yankton and Yanktonai, about the lower and
upper courses of the James River respectively, together with the
Assiniboin tribe constitute the central dialectic group. The
great Teton division, west of the Missouri and comprising
three-fifths of the whole nation, constitutes a third dialectic
group. The Teton are divided into seven principal bands,
commonly known as Ogalala (at Pine Ridge); Brule (at Rosebud and
Lower Brule); Hunkpapa (at Standing Rock); Miniconju, Sans-Arc;
and Two Kettle (Cheyenne River). Among the more sedentary
eastern bands chiefship seems to have been hereditary in the
male line, but with the roving western bands it depended usually
upon pre-eminent ability. In their original home about the heads
of the Mississippi the Sioux subsisted chiefly upon wild rice,
fish, and small game, and were expert canoe men, but as they
drifted west into the plains and obtained possession of the
horse their whole manner of life was changed, and they became a
race of equestrian nomads, subsisting almost entirely upon the
buffalo. They seem never to have been agricultural to any great
extent. Their dwelling was the birch-bark lodge in the east and
the buffalo-skin tipi on the plain. Their dead were sometimes
deposited in a coffin upon the surface of the ground, but more
often laid upon a scaffolding or in the tree-tops. Food and
valuables were left with the corpse, and relatives gashed their
bodies with knives and cut off their hair in token of grief.
Besides the knife, bow, and hatchet of the forest warrior, they
carried also on the plains the lance and shield of the horseman.
Polygamy was recognized. There was no clan system.
To the Sioux the earth was a great island plain surrounded by an
ocean far to the west of which was the spirit world. There were
two souls -- some said four -- one of which remained near the
grave after death, while the other traveled on to the spirit
world, or in certain cases became a wandering and dangerous
ghost. In the west also, in a magic house upon the top of a high
mountain and guarded by four sentinel animals at the four
doorways, lived the Wakinyan, or thunders, the greatest of the
gods, and mortal enemies of the subterranean earth spirits and
the water spirits. the sun also was a great god. There was no
supreme "Great Spirit", as supposed by the whites, no ethical
code to their supernaturalism, and no heaven or hell in their
spirit world. Among animals the buffalo was naturally held in
highest veneration. Fairies and strange monsters, both good and
bad, were everywhere, usually invisible, but sometimes revealing
themselves in warning portent. Dreams were held as direct
revelations of the supernatural. Taboos, fasting, and
sacrifices, including voluntary torture, were frequent. Among
the great ceremonials the annual sun dance was the most
important, on which occasion the principal performers danced at
short intervals for four days and nights, without food, drink,
or sleep, undergoing at the same time painful bodily laceration,
either as a propitiation or in fulfillment of a thanksgiving
vow. The several warrior orders and various secret societies
each had their special dance, and for young girls there was a
puberty ceremony. (For cults and home life see works of Dorsey
and Eastman quoted in bibliography below.) In physique,
intellect, morality, and general manliness the Sioux rated among
the finest of the Plains tribes. Under the newer conditions the
majority are now fairly industrious and successful farmers and
stock-raisers.
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
The Sioux language is euphonious, sonorous, and flexible, and
possesses a more abundant native literature than that of any
other tribe within the United States, with the possible
exception of the Cherokee. By means of an alphabet system
devised by the early Presbyterian missionaries, nearly all of
the men can read and write their own language. The printed
literature includes religious works, school textbooks, grammars,
and dictionaries, miscellaneous publications, and three current
mission journals, Catholic, as already noted, Presbyterian, and
Episcopal, all three entirely in Sioux. The earliest publication
was a spelling-book by Rev. J.D. Stevens in 1836. In linguistics
the principal is the "Grammar and Dictionary of the Dakota
Language", by Rev. S. R. Riggs, published by the Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, in 1852, and republished in part, with
editing by Dorsey, by the Bureau of Am. Ethnology, Washington,
in 1892-4.
POPULATION
Contrary to the usual rule with Indian tribes, the Sioux have
not only held their own since the advent of the whites, but have
apparently slightly increased. This increase, however, is due
largely to incorporation of captives and intermarriage of
whites. We have no reliable estimates for the whole tribe before
1849, when Governor Ramsey gave them "not over 20,000", while
admitting that some resident authorities gave them 40,000 or
more. Riggs in 1851 gives them about 25,000, but under-estimates
the western (Teton) bands. By official census of 1910 they
number altogether 28,618 souls, including all mixed-bloods,
distributed as follows: Minnesota, scattered, about 929;
Nebraska, Santee agency, 1155; North Dakota, Devil's Lake (Fort
Totten) agency, 986; Standing Rock agency, 3454; South Dakota,
Flandreau agency, 275, Lower Brule, 469, Crow Creek, 997,
Yankton, 1753, Sisseton, 1994, Cheyenne River, 2590, Rosebud,
5096, Pine Ridge, 6758. Canada: Birdtail, Oak Lake, Oak River,
Turtle Mountain, Portage La Prairie (Manitoba), 613; Wahspaton,
Standing Buffalo, Moosejaw, Moose Woods (Sask.), 455. Those in
Canada are chiefly descendants of refugees from the United
States in 1862 and 1876.
BRYANT AND MURCH, Hist. of the Great Massacre by the Sioux
Indians (St. Peter, 1872); BUREAU CATH. IND. MISSIONS, Annual
Reports of the Director (Washington); Annual Reports of the
Dept. of Ind. Affairs (Ottawa, Canada); CARVER, Travels through
in Interior Parts of N. Am. (1766-8); (London, 1778, and later
editions); CATLIN, Manners, Customs and Condition of the N. Am.
Inds. (London, 1841, and later editions); CHITTENDEN, Am. Fur
Trade (New York, 1902); CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON, Life, Letters
and Travels of Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, (New York, 1905);
COMMISSIONER OF IND. AFFAIRS, Annual Reports (Washington);
Condition of the Indian Tribes, Report of Joint Special
Committee (Washington, 1867); DORSEY, Study of Siouan Cults, in
11th Rept. Bur. Am. Eth. (Washington, 1894); EASTMAN, Indian
Boyhood (New York, 1902); IDEM, Wigwam Evenings (Boston, 1909);
FINERTY, Warpath and Bivouac (Chicago, 1890); HAYDEN, Conts. to
the Ethnography and Philology of the Ind. Tribes of the Missouri
Valley in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc., n. s., XII (Philadelphia,
1862); HENNEPIN, Description de la Louisiane (Paris, 1683), tr.
SHEA (New York, 1880); HINMAN AND WELSH, Journal of the Rev.
S.D. Hinman (Philadelphia, 1869); Jesuit Relations, ed.
Thwaites, 73 vols., especially Ottawa and Illinois, L-LXXI
(Cleveland, 1896-1901); Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, ed.
KAPPLER, (Washington, 1903 - 4); KEATING, Expedition (Long's) to
the Sources of St. Peter's River (Philadelphia, 1824 and later
editions); LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals of the Expedition
of 1804-6, ed. THWAITES, 8 vols. (New York, 1904-5. numerous
other editions more or less complete, the first offical report
being contained in the Message from the President, Washington,
1806); MCGEE, Siouan Indians in 15th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology
(Washington, 1897); MCKENNEY AND HALL, Hist. Ind. Tribes of
North Am. (Philadelphia, 1854, and other editions); MCLAUGHLIN,
My Friend the Indian (Boston, 1910); MALLERY, Pictographs of the
N. Am. Indians in 4th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington,
1886); IDEM, Picture Writing of the Am. Inds. in 10th Rept. Bur.
Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1893); MARGRY, Decouvertes et
etablissements des Francais (6 vols., Paris, 1879-86);
MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF WIED, Travels in the Interior of N. Am.
(London, 1843; original German ed. 2 vols., Coblenz, 1839-41);
MILES, Personal Recollections (Chicago, 1896); Minnesota Hist.
Soc. Colls. (1872-1905); MOONEY, Siouan Tribes of the East,
bull. 22, Bureau Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1895); IDEM, The
Ghost Dance Religion and Sioux Outbreak of 1890 in 14th Rept.
Bur. Am. Ethnology, (Washington, 1896); NEILL, Hist. of
Minnesota (Philadelphia, 1858); New York, Documents Relating to
the Colonial Hist. of (15 vols., Albany, 1853-87); NICOLLET,
Report on . . . Upper Mississippi (Senate Doc.) (Washington,
1843); North Dakota Hist. Soc. Colls. (2 vols., Bismarck,
1906-8); PARKMAN, Oregon Trail (New York, 1849, and later
editions); PERRIN DU LAC, Voyages dans les deux Louisianes,
1801-3 (Paris and Lyons, 1805); PIKE, Expedition to the Sources
of the Mississippi (Philadelphia, 1810); PILLING, Bibl. of the
Siouan Languages, Bull. 5, Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington,
1887); POOLE, Among the Sioux of Dakota (New York, 1881);
RAMSEY, Report on Sioux in Rept. Comsner. Ind. Affairs for 1849
II (Washington, 1850); RAVOUX, Reminiscences, memoris and
Lectures (St. Paul, 1890); RIGGS, The Dakota Language in Colls.
Minn. Hist. Soc., I (St. Paul, 1851, reprint St. Paul, 1872);
IDEM, Grammar and Dict. of the Dakota Language: Smithsonian
Contributions, IV (Washington, 1852); IDEM, Tahkoo Wahkan, or
the Gospel among the Dakotas (Boston, 1869); IDEM, Mary and I:
Forty Years with the Sioux (Chicago, 1880); ROBINSON, Hist. of
the Sioux Indians in Colls. South Dakota Hist. Soc., II
(Aberdeen, S.D., 1904); ROYCE AND THOMAS, Indian Land Cessions
in 18th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology, II (Washington, 1899);
SCHOOLCRAFT, Travels . . . to the Sources of the Mississippi
(Albany, 1821); IDEM, Hist. Condition and Prospects of the
Indian Tribes of the U. S. (6 vols., Philadelphia, 1851-7);
Sheridan (in charge), Record of Engagements with Hostile
Indians, etc., 1868-1882 (Washington, 1882); SHEA, Hist. of the
Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the U.S. (New York,
1855); IDEM, Disc. and Expl. of the Mississippi Valley (New
York, 1852); and Albany, 1903); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New
York, 1847); Fr. edition, Ghent, 1848); IDEM, Western Missions
and Missionaries (New York,1863); (see also CHITTENDEN AND
RICHARDSON), South Dakota Hist. Soc. Colls. (3 vols., Aberdeen,
S.D., 1902-6); WALL, Recollections of the Sioux Massacre (1862)
(Lake City, Minn., 1909); WARREN, Explorations in the Dakota
Country, 1855, Senate Doc. (Washington, 1856); WARREN, Hist. of
the Ojibways in Minn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V (St. Paul, 1885);
WHIPPLE, Lights and Shadows of a Long Episcopate (New York,
1899); Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Colls. (16 vols., Madison,
1855-1902).
JAMES MOONEY
Sipibo Indians
Sipibo Indians
A numerous tribe of Panoan linguistic stock, formerly centring
about the Pisqui and Aguaitia tributaries of the upper Ucayali
River, Province of Loreto, north-eastern Peru, and now found as
boatmen or labourers along the whole course of that stream. They
speak the same language as the Conibo, Pano, and Setebo, whom
they resemble in habit and ceremonial.
The Sipibo became known about the same time as their cognate
tribes early in the seventeenth century, but opposed a
determined resistance to the entrance of both gold-hunters and
missionaries (1657), for a long time frustrating all
Christianizing efforts in the Ucayali region by their constant
raids upon the mission settlements, particularly of the Setebo.
In 1670, in common with other tribes of that region, they were
greatly wasted by smallpox. In 1736 they broke the power of the
Setebo in a bloody battle, but in 1764 the Franciscan Father
Juan de Frezneda entered their country and so far won their good
will that he succeeded in making peace between the two tribes
and in the next year (1765) established the first mission among
the Sipibo under the title of Santo Domingo de Pisqui. This was
shortly followed by the founding of Santa Barbara de Archani and
Santa Cruz de Aguaitia in the same tribe, together with a
resumption of work among the Conibo, first undertaken in 1685.
Among other labourers in the Sipibo field at this period was
Father Jose Amich, author of a history of the Ucayali missions.
Suddenly and without warning in the summer of 1766 all the river
tribes attacked the missions simultaneously, slaughtered nine of
the missionaries together with their neophytes, and completely
destroyed all that had been accomplished by years of presevering
sacrifice. Rungato, a Setebo chief, who had professed the
greatest friendship for the missionaries, appears to have been
the leader. The reason of the outbreak was never known. It may
have been jealousy of authority, impatience of restraint,
covetousness of the mission property, some unrecorded outrage by
the Spaniards on the frontier, some dream, or superstitious
panic such as are of so frequent occurrence among savages. A
small relief expedition sent out in charge of three Franciscans
the next year learned the details of the massacre, and was
forced to turn back, but was permitted to retire without
molestation.
This last rising of the wild tribes of the middle Ucayali was in
some measure an echo of a similar rising of the wild Campa
tribes on the upper branches of the same stream in 1742, led by
Juan Santos, an apostate Quichua Indian, who assumed the title
of the Inca Atahualpa (see QUICHUA), and resulting in the
destruction of all the missions of that region and the slaughter
of nearly eighty Franciscan missionaries. Of this rising of the
Campa, Herndon says: "It is quite evident that no distaste for
the Catholic religion induced this rebellion; for in the year
1750, eight years afterward, the Marquis of Mina-hermosa,
marching into this country for the punishment of the rebels,
found the church at Quimisi in perfect order, with candles
burning before the images. He burned the town and church, and
six years after this, when another entrance into this country
was made by General Bustamente, he found the town rebuilt and a
large cross erected in the middle of the plaza. I have had
occasion myself to notice the respect and reverence of these
Indians for their pastors, and their delight in participating in
the ceremonial and sense-striking worship of the Roman Church."
A similar instance is recorded of the revolted Pueblos (q.v.),
as also of the unconverted Setebo. Following close upon the
massacre of 1766 came the expulsion of the Jesuits by royal
decree in the following year, and the Ucayali region was given
over to barbarism until 1791, when by direction of the superior
of the Franciscan college of Ocopa, Father Narciso Girbal with
two companions once more braved the wilderness dangers and made
successful foundation at Sarayacu (q.v.) into which mission and
its branches most of the wandering river Indians were finally
gathered.
A description of the Sipibo will answer in most of its details
for all the tribes of the Ucayali and Huallaga region, within
the former sphere of influence of the Franciscan missionaries,
with the addition that certain tribes, particularly the Cashibo,
were noted for their cannibalism. There was very little tribal
solidarity, each so-called tribe being broken up into petty
bands ruled by local chiefs, and seldom acting together even
against a common enemy. They subsisted chiefly on fish, game,
turtle eggs, bananas, yuccas, and a little corn, agriculture,
however, being but feebly developed. The root of the yucca was
roasted as bread, ground between stones for flour, boiled or
fried, while from the juice, fermented with saliva, was prepared
the intoxicating masato or chicha, which was in requisition at
all family or tribal festivals. Salt was seldom used, but
clay-eating was common and sometimes of fatal consequence. Their
houses, scattered simply at intervals along the streams, were of
open framework thatched with palm leaves. The arrow poison,
usually known as curari, was prepared from the juice of certain
lianas or tree vines and was an article of intertribal trade
over a great extent of territory. They either went entirely
naked or wore a short skirt or sleeveless shirt woven of cotton
or bark fibre. Head flattening and the wearing of nose and ear
pendants and labrets were common. They blackened their teeth
with a vegetable dye. The modern civilized Indians dress in
light peon fashion.
Although most of the tribes could count no higher than five,
their general mentality was high, and they progressed rapidly in
civilized arts. Their religion was animism, dominated by the
yutumi or priests, but with few great ceremonies. As among all
savages, disease and death were commonly ascribed to evil
spirits or witchcraft. Polygamy was universal, the women being
frequently obtained by raids upon other tribes. Among their
barbarous customs were the eating of prisoners of war, and
sometimes of deceased parents, the killing of the helpless and
of deformed children and twins, and a sort of circumcision of
young girls at about the age of twelve years. A part of the
Sipibo still roam the forests, but the majority are now
civilized and employed as boatmen, rubber-gatherers, or
labourers along the river. In common with all the tribes of the
region their numbers are steadily decreasing. See also SETEBO
INDIANS.
Consult particularly: RAIMONDI, El Peru, II and III, Hist. de la
Geografia del Peru, bks. i and ii (Lima, 1876-79), Raimondi
derives much of his information from a MS. history of the
Franciscan missions, by Fernando Rodriguez, 1774, preserved in
the convent at Lima; IDEM, Provincia Litoral de Loreto (Lima,
1862), condensed tr. by BOLLAERT in Anthropological Review
(London, May, 1863); BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891);
CASTELNAU, Expedition dans les parties centrales de l' Amerique
du Sud. IV (Paris, 1891); EBERHARDT, Indians of Peru in
Smithson. Miscel. Colls., quarterly issue, V (Washington, 1909),
2; HERNDON, Exploration of the Amazon (Washington, 1854);
ORDINAIRE, Les Sauvages du Perou in Revue d'Ethnographie, VI
(Paris, 1887); SMYTH and LOWE, Journey from Lima to Para
(London, 1836).
JAMES MOONEY
Pope St. Siricius
Pope St. Siricius
(384-99).
Born about 334; died 26 November, 399, Siricius was a native of
Rome; his father's name was Tiburtius. Siricius entered the
service of the Church at an early age and, according to the
testimony of the inscription on his grave, was lector and then
deacon of the Roman Church during the pontificate of Liberius
(352-66). After the death of Damasus, Siricius was unanimously
elected his successor (December, 384) and consecrated bishop
probably on 17 December. Ursinus, who had been a rival to
Damasus (366), was alive and still maintained his claims.
However, the Emperor Valentinian III, in a letter to Pinian (23
Feb., 385), gave his consent to the election that had been held
and praised the piety of the newly-elected bishop; consequently
no difficulties arose. Immediately upon his elevation Siricius
had occasion to assert his primacy over the universal Church. A
letter, in which questions were asked on fifteen different
points concerning baptism, penance, church discipline, and the
celibacy of the clergy, came to Rome addressed to Pope Damasus
by Bishop Himerius of Tarragona, Spain. Siricius answered this
letter on 10 February, 385, and gave the decisions as to the
matters in question, exercising with full consciousness his
supreme power of authority in the Church (Coustant, "Epist. Rom.
Pont.", 625 sq.). This letter of Siricius is of special
importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal
decretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questions of
discipline and canon law). It is, however, certain that before
this earlier popes had also issued such decretals, for Siricius
himself in his letter mentions "general decrees" of Liberius
that the latter had sent to the provinces; but these earlier
ones have not been preserved. At the same time the pope directed
Himerius to make known his decrees to the neighbouring
provinces, so that they should also be observed there. This pope
had very much at heart the maintenance of Church discipline and
the observance of canons by the clergy and laity. A Roman synod
of 6 January, 386, at which eighty bishops were present,
reaffirmed in nine canons the laws of the Church on various
points of discipline (consecration of bishops, celibacy, etc.).
The decisions of the council were communicated by the pope to
the bishops of North Africa and probably in the same manner to
others who had not attended the synod, with the command to act
in accordance with them. Another letter which was sent to
various churches dealt with the election of worthy bishops and
priests. A synodal letter to the Gallican bishops, ascribed by
Coustant and others to Siricius, is assigned to Pope Innocent I
by other historians (P.L., XIII, 1179 sq.). In all his decrees
the pope speaks with the consciousness of his supreme
ecclesiastical authority and of his pastoral care over all the
churches.
Siricius was also obliged to take a stand against heretical
movements. A Roman monk Jovinian came forward as an opponent of
fasts, good works, and the higher merit of celibate life. He
found some adherents among the monks and nuns of Rome. About
390-392 the pope held a synod at Rome, at which Jovinian and
eight of his followers were condemned and excluded from
communion with the Church. The decision was sent to St. Ambrose,
the great Bishop of Milan and a friend of Siricius. Ambrose now
held a synod of the bishops of upper Italy which, as the letter
says, in agreement with his decision also condemned the
heretics. Other heretics including Bishop Bonosus of Sardica
(390), who was also accused of errors in the dogma of the
Trinity, maintained the false doctrine that Mary was not always
a virgin. Siricius and Ambrose opposed Bonosus and his adherents
and refuted their false views. The pope then left further
proceedings against Bonosus to the Bishop of Thessalonica and
the other Illyrian bishops. Like his predecessor Damasus,
Siricius also took part in the Priscillian controversy; he
sharply condemned the episcopal accusers of Priscillian, who had
brought the matter before the secular court and had prevailed
upon the usurper Maximus to condemn to death and execute
Priscillian and some of his followers. Maximus sought to justify
his action by sending to the pope the proceedings in the case.
Siricius, however, excommunicated Bishop Felix of Trier who
supported Ithacius, the accuser of Priscillian, and in whose
city the execution had taken place. The pope addressed a letter
to the Spanish bishops in which he stated the conditions under
which the converted Priscillians were to be restored to
communion with the Church.
According to the life in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne,
I, 216), Siricius also took severe measures against the
Manichaeans at Rome. However, as Duchesne remarks (loc. cit.,
notes) it cannot be assumed from the writings of the converted
Augustine, who was a Manichaean when he went to Rome (383), that
Siricius took any particular steps against them, yet Augustine
would certainly have commented on this if such had been the
case. The mention in the "Liber Pontificalis" belongs properly
to the life of Pope Leo I. Neither is it probable, as Langen
thinks (Gesch. der roem. Kirche, I, 633), that Priscillians are
to be understood by this mention of Manichaeans, although
probably Priscillians were at times called Manichaeans in the
writings of that age. The western emperors, including Honorius
and Valentinian III, issued laws against the Manichaeans, whom
they declared to be political offenders, and took severe action
against the members of this sect (Codex Theodosian, XVI, V,
various laws). In the East Siricius interposed to settle the
Meletian schism at Antioch; this schism had continued
notwithstanding the death in 381 of Meletius at the Council of
Constantinople. The followers of Meletius elected Flavian as his
successor, while the adherents of Bishop Paulinus, after the
death of this bishop (388), elected Evagrius. Evagrius died in
392 and through Flavian's management no successor was elected.
By the mediation of St. John Chrysostom and Theophilus of
Alexandria an embassy, led by Bishop Acacius of Beroea, was sent
to Rome to persuade Siricius to recognize Flavian and to readmit
him to communion with the Church.
At Rome the name of Siricius is particularly connected with the
basilica over the grave of St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis which
was rebuilt by the emperor as a basilica of five aisles during
the pontificate of Siricius and was dedicated by the pope in
390. The name of Siricius is still to be found on one of the
pillars that was not destroyed in the fire of 1823, and which
now stands in the vestibule of the side entrance to the
transept. Two of his contemporaries describe the character of
Siricius disparagingly. Paulinus of Nola, who on his visit to
Rome in 395 was treated in a guarded manner by the pope, speaks
of the urbici papae superba discretio, the haughty policy of the
Roman bishop (Epist., V, 14). This action of the pope is,
however, explained by the fact that there had been
irregularities in the election and consecration of Paulinus
(Buse, "Paulin von Nola", I, 193). Jerome, for his part, speaks
of the "lack of judgment" of Siricius (Epist., cxxvii, 9) on
account of the latter's treatment of Rufinus of Aquileia, to
whom the pope had given a letter when Rufinus left Rome in 398,
which showed that he was in communion with the Church. The
reason, however, does not justify the judgment which Jerome
expressed against the pope; moreover, Jerome in his polemical
writings often exceeds the limits of propriety. All that is
known of the labours of Siricius refutes the criticism of the
caustic hermit of Bethlehem. The "Liber Pontificalis" gives an
incorrect date for his death; he was buried in the caemeterium
of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The text of the inscription on
his grave is known (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis
Romae", II, 102, 138). His feast is celebrated on 26 November.
His name was inserted in the Roman Martyrology by Benedict XIV.
Liber Pontif., ed; DUCHESNE, I, 216-17; COUSTANT, Epist. Roman.
Pont., I; JAFFE, Reg. Pont. Rom., I, 2nd ed, 40-42; BABUT, La
plus ancienne Decretale (PARIS, 1904); LANGEN, Gesch. der roem.
Kirche, I (Bonn, 1881), 611 sqq.; RAUSCHEN, Jahrb. der christl.
Kirche (Freiburg, 1897); GRISAR, Gesch. Roms u. der Paepste, I,
passim; HEFELE, Konziliengesch., II, 2nd ed., 45-48, 51.
J.P. KIRSCH
Gugliemo Sirleto
Gugliemo Sirleto
Cardinal and scholar, born at Guardavalle near Stilo in
Calabria, 1514; died at Rome, 6 October, 1585. The son of a
physician, he received an excellent education, made the
acquaintance of distinguished scholars at Rome, and became an
intimate friend of Cardinal Marcello Cervino, later Pope
Marcellus II. He prepared for Cervino, who was President of the
Council of Trent in its initial period, extensive reports on all
the important questions presented for discussion. After his
appointment as custodian of the Vatican Library, Sirleto drew up
a complete descriptive catalogue of its Greek manuscripts and
prepared a new edition of the Vulgate. Paul IV named him
prothonotary and tutor to two of his nephews. After this pope's
death he taught Greek and Hebrew at Rome, numbering St. Charles
Barromeo among his students. During the concluding period of the
Council of Trent, he was, although he continued to reside at
Rome, the Constant and most heeded adviser of the
cardinal-legates. He was himself created cardinal in 1565,
became Bishop of San Marco in Calabria in 1566, and a Squillace
in 1568. An order of the papal secretary of state, however,
enjoined his residence at Rome, where he was named, in 1570,
librarian of the Vatican Library. His influence was paramount in
the execution of the scientific undertakings decreed by the
Council of Trent. He collaborated in the publication of the
Roman Catechism, presided over the Commissions for the reform of
Roman Breviary and Missal, and directed the work of the new
edition of the Roman Martyrology. Highly appreciative of Greek
culture, he entertained all friendly relations with the East and
encouraged all efforts tending to ecclesiastical reunion. He was
attended in his last illness by St. Philip Neri and was buried
in the presence of Sixtus V.
HURTER, Nomenclator Lit., I (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1892), 95-6;
BAeUMER-BIRON, Hist. du breviaire, II (Paris, 1905), 169-71,
passim.
N.A. WEBER
Diocese of Sirmium
Diocese of Sirmium
(SZEREM, SIRMIENSIS)
Sirmium, situated near the modern town of Mitrovitz in Slavonia;
its church is said to have been founded by St. Peter. The
district of Szerem was subject to the Archbishop of Kalocsa
after the Christianization of Hungary. In 1228, the archbishop
petitioned the Holy See, in consideration of the large extent of
his diocese, to found a new bishopric, and in 1229 Gregory IX
established the See of Szerem, the jurisdiction of which covered
almost exclusively the country on the right bank of the Sava
River. The see was under the Turkish Government in 1526. It had
no bishop from 1537 to 1578, and was held by a titular bishop
after 1624. In 1709 the see was re-established with some changes
in its territory. Clement XIV united it with Bosnia and Diakovar
in 1773.
SZOeRENYI, Vindicioe Sirmienses (Buda, 1746); FARLATI, Illyricum
sacrum, VII, 449-811; PRAY, Specimen Hierarchiaoe Hungarioe, II,
362-95; A katolikus Magyarorszag (Budapest, 1902).
A. ALDASY.
Jacques Sirmond
Jacques Sirmond
One of the greatest scholars of the seventeenth century, born at
Riom in the Department of Puy-de-Dome, France, October, 1559;
died in Paris, 7 October 1651. He entered the Society of Jesus
in 1576 and was appointed in 1581 professor of classical
languages in Paris, where he numbered St. Francis de Sales among
his pupils. Called to Rome in 1590, he was for sixteen years
private secretary to the Jesuit superior general, Aquaviva,
devoting his leisure moments during the same period to the study
of the literary and historical treasures of antiquity. He
entertained intimate relations with several learned men then
present at Rome, among them Bellarmine and particularly
Baronius, whom he was helpful in the composition of the
"Annales". In 1608 he returned to Paris, and in 1637 became
confessor to King Louis XIII. His first literary production
appeared in 1610, and from that date until the end of this life
almost every year witnessed the publication of some new work.
The results of his literary labours are chiefly represented by
editions of Greek and Latin Christian writings. Theodoret of
Cyrus, Ennodius, Idatius of Gallicia, Sidonius Apollinaris,
Theodulph of Orleans, Paschasius Radbertus, Flodoard, and
Hincmar of Rheims are among the writers whose works he edited
either completely or in part. Of great importance were his
editions of the capitularies of Charles the Bald and successors
and the ancient councils of France: "Karoli Calvi et successorum
aliquot Franciae regum Capitula" (Paris, 1623); "Concilia
antiqua Galliae" (Paris, 1629). His collected works, a complete
list of which will be found in de Backer- Sommervogel (VII,
1237-60), were published in Paris in 1696 and again at Venice in
1728.
DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. De la comp. de Jesus, VII
(Brussels, 1896), 1237-61; COLOMIES, Vie du Pere Sirmond (La
Rochelle, 1671); CHALMERS, Biog. Dict. (London, 1816), s. v.
N.A. WEBER
Pope Sisinnius
Pope Sisinnius
Date of birth unknown; died 4 February, 708, Successor of John
VII, he was consecrated probably 15 January, 708, and died after
a brief pontificate of about three weeks; he was buried in St.
Peter's. He was a Syrian by birth and the son of one John.
Although he was so afflicted with gout that he was unable even
to feed himself, he is nevertheless said to have been a man of
strong character, and to have been able to take thought for the
good of the city. He gave orders to prepare lime to repair the
walls of Rome, and before he died consecrated a bishop for
Corsica.
Liber Pontificalis, I, 338: MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the
Early Middle Ages, I, pt. ii (St. Louis and London, 1902), 124.
HORACE K. MANN
Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati
Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio
On 27 October, 1829, at the request of Bishop Fenwick of
Cincinnati, several sisters from Mother Seton's community at
Emmitsburg, Maryland, opened an orphanage, parochial school, and
academy on Sycamore Street opposite the old cathedral, then
occupying the present site of St. Xavier's Church and college.
When Bishop Purcell built the new cathedral on Eighth and Plum
Sts., the sisters moved to Third and Plum Sts., and later the
academy was transferred to George St., near John. When Father
Etienne, superior of the Daughters of Charity of France, in
December, 1850, effected the affiliation of the sisterhood at
Emmitsburg with the Daughters of Charity of France, Sister
Margaret George was superior in Cincinnati. She had entered the
community at Emmitsburg early in 1812, and had filled the office
of treasurer and secretary of the community, teaching in the
academy during most of Mother Seton's life. She wrote the early
records of the American Daughters of Charity, heard all the
discussions regarding rules and constitutions, and left to her
community in Cincinnati letters from the first bishops and
clergy of the United States, Mother Seton's original Journal
written in 1803 and some of her letters, and valuable writings
of her own. She upheld Mother Seton's rules, constitutions,
traditions, and costume, confirmed by Archbishop Carroll 17
Jan., 1812, objecting with Archbishop Carroll and Mother Seton
to the French rule in its fulness, in that it limited the
exercise of charity to females in the orphanages and did not
permit the teaching of boys in the schools. The sisters in New
York had separated from Emmitsburg in December, 1846, because
they were to be withdrawn from the boys' orphanage. When it was
finally decided that the community at Emmitsburg was to
affiliate with the French Daughters of Charity, the sisters in
Cincinnati laid before Archbishop Purcell their desire to
preserve the original rule of Mother Seton's foundation. He
confirmed the sisters in their desire and notified the superior
of the French Daughters of Charity that he would take under his
protection the followers of Mother Seton. Archbishop Purcell
became ecclesiastical superior and was succeeded by Archbishop
Elder and Archbishop Moeller.
The novitiate in Cincinnati was opened in 1852. During that year
twenty postulants were received. The first Catholic hospital was
opened by the sisters in November, 1852. In February, 1853, the
sisters took charge of the Mary and Martha Society, a charitable
organization established for the benefit of the poor of the
city. On 15 August, 1853, the sisters purchased their first
property on the corner of Sixth and Parks Sts., and opened there
in September a boarding and select day-school. The following
July they bought a stone house on Mt. Harrison near Mt. St. Mary
Seminary of the West, and called it Mt. St. Vincent. The
community was incorporated under the laws of Ohio in 1854 as
"The Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio". Mother Margaret
George, Sister Sophia Gillmeyer, Mother Josephine Harvey, Sister
Anthony O'Connell, Mother Regina Mattingly, Sister Antonio
McCaffrey, and Sister Gonzalva Dougherty were the incorporators.
In 1856 Mt. St. Vincent Academy was transferred to the "Cedars",
the former home of Judge Alderson. It remained the mother-house
until 29 September, 1869, and the boarding-school until July,
1906. It is now a day academy and a residence for the sisters
teaching adjacent parochial schools. In 1857 Bishop Bayley of
New Jersey sent five postulants to Mt. St. Vincent, Cedar Grove,
Cincinnati, to be trained by Mother Margaret George. At the
conclusion of their novitiate, Mother Margaret and Sister
Anthony were to have gone with them to Newark, New Jersey, to
remain until the little community would be well established, but
affairs proving too urgent, Mother Margaret interceded with the
New York community, and Sisters Xavier and Catherine were
appointed superiors over the little band. In July, 1859, Mother
Margaret George having held the office of mother for the two
terms allowed by the constitution, was succeeded by Mother
Josephine Harvey. During the Civil War many of the sisters
served in the hospitals. Between 1852 and 1865 the sisters had
taken charge of ten parochial schools. Archbishop Lamy of New
Mexico, and Bishop Machebeuf of Colorado, both pioneer priests
of Ohio, in 1865 petitioned Archbishop Purcell for a colony of
Sisters of Charity to open a hospital and orphanage in the West.
Accordingly four sisters left Cincinnati 21 August, 1865,
arriving at Santa Fe, 13 September, 1865. The archbishop gave
them his own residence which had been used also as a seminary.
There were twenty-five orphans to be cared for and some sick to
be nursed. On 15 August, 1866, Joseph C. Butler and Lewis
Worthington presented Sister Anthony O'Connell with the Good
Samaritan Hospital, a building erected by the Government for a
Marine Hospital at a cost of $300,000. Deeply impressed by the
charity done in "Old St. John's" during the war, these
non-Catholic gentlemen bought the Government hospital for
$90,000 and placed the deeds in the hands of Sister Anthony,
Butler suggesting the name "Good Samaritan". Early in 1870
Bishop Domenec of Pittsburg, desiring a diocesan branch of
Mother Seton's community, sent four postulants to be trained in
the Cincinnati novitiate. On their return they were accompanied
by five of the Cincinnati sisters who were to remain with them
for a limited time, and to be withdrawn one by one. Finally all
were recalled but Mother Aloysia Lowe and Sister Ann Regina
Ennis, the former being superior and latter mistress of novices.
Mother Aloysia governed the community firmly but tenderly, and
before her death (1889) had the satisfaction of seeing the
sisters in their new mother-house at Seton Hill, Greensburg,
Pa., the academy having been blessed, and the chapel dedicated,
3 May, 1889. Mother Aloysia's term of office had expired 19
July, 1889, and she was succeeded by Sister Ann Regina (d. 16
May, 1894). The community at Greensburg, Pa., at present number
more than three hundred. Their St. Joseph Academy at the
mother-house is flourishing; they teach about thirty parochial
schools in the Dioceses of Altoona and Pittsburg and conduct the
Pittsburg Hospital and Roselia Foundling Asylum in Pittsburg.
From 1865 to 1880 the Sisters in Cincinnati opened thirty-three
branch houses, one of these being the St. Joseph Foundling and
Maternity Hospital, a gift to Sister Anthony from Joseph Butler.
In 1869 a site for a mother-house, five miles from Cedar Grove,
was purchased. The first Mass was offered in the novitiate
chapel, 24 October, 1869, by Rev. Thos. S. Byrne, the chaplain,
the present Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee. In 1882 the building
of the new mother-house began under his direction. Before its
completion Mother Regina Mattingly died (4 June, 1883). Mother
Josephine Harvey again assumed the office. In 1885 the new St.
Joseph was burned to the ground. The present mother-house was
begun at once under the superintendence of Rev. T. S. Byrne. Mt.
St. Mary Seminary, closed since the financial troubles, was now
used for the sisters' novitiate. In July, 1886, the sisters took
possession of the west wing of the mother-house, and the
following year the seminary reopened. Mother Josephine Harvey
resigned the office of mother in 1888, and was succeeded by
Mother Mary Paul Hayes, who filled Mother Josephine's unexpired
term and was re-elected in July, 1890, dying the following
April. Mother Mary Blanche Davis was appointed to the office of
mother, and held it until July, 1899. During her incumbency the
Seton Hospital, the Glockner Sanitarium at Colorado Springs, St.
Joseph Sanitarium, Mt. Clemens, Mich., and Santa Maria Institute
for Italians were begun; additions were made to the
mother-house. During the administration of Mother Sebastian Shea
were built: the St. Joseph Sanitarium, Pueblo; the San Rafael
Hospital, Trinidad; the St. Vincent Hospital, Santa Fe, New
Mexico; the St. Vincent Academy, Albuquerque; and the Good
Samaritan Annex in Clifton. Mother Mary Blanche resumed the
duties of office in 1905, and was re-elected in 1908. During
these terms a very large addition was built to the Glockner
Sanitarium and to the St. Mary Sanitarium, Pueblo; the Hospital
Antonio in Kenton, Ohio; a large boarding school for boys at
Fayetteville, Ohio; the new Seton Hospital was bought; the new
Good Samaritan Hospital was begun. Many parochial schools were
opened, among them a school for coloured children in Memphis,
Tennessee.
The community numbers: about 800 members; 74 branch houses; 5
academies; 2 orphan asylums; 1 foundling asylum; 1 Italian
institute; 11 hospitals or sanitariums; 1 Old Ladies' Home; 53
parochial schools throughout Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee,
Colorado, and New Mexico.
SISTER MARY AGNES
Sisters of the Little Company of Mary
Sisters of the Little Company of Mary
A congregation founded in 1877 in England to honour in a
particular manner the maternal Heart of the Blessed Virgin,
especially in the mystery of Calvary. The sisters make an entire
consecration of themselves to her, and aim at imitating her
virtues. They devote themselves to the sick and dying, which is
their principal exterior work. They nurse the sick in their own
homes, and also receive them in the hospitals and nursing-homes
attached to their convents. They make no distinction of class,
nationality or creed, and exact no charge for their services,
but accept any offering which may be made them. Besides the
personal attendance on the sick, they are bound to pray
continually for the dying, and in the novitiate watch before the
Blessed Sacrament, both by day and night, praying for the dying.
When circumstances require it, the sisters may engage in various
forms of mission work, especially in poor districts. The rules
received final approbation from Leo XIII in 1893. The order
conducts houses in: Italy (1 in Rome, 1 at Florence, 1 at
Fiesole); England (3 in London, 1 in Nottingham); Ireland (1 at
Limerick, 1 in Fermoy); Malta (1); Untied States (Chicago);
Australia (2 at Sydney, 1 at Adelaide); South Africa (Port
Elizabeth). The sisters when in the convent wear a black habit
and blue veil, with a white cloak in the chapel; when nursing,
the habit is of white linen, with a blue veil.
An association of pious women, known as "Pie Donne" or
"Affiliated", are aggregated to the order, and share in its
prayers and good works, some residing in their own homes, others
living in the convent, though in part separated from the
community. A confraternity is attached to the order, called the
Calvary Confraternity, the members of which assist those in
their last agony by their prayers and, if possible, by personal
attendance.
MOTHER M. PATRICK
Sistine Choir
Sistine Choir
Although it is known that the Church, from her earliest days,
employed music in her cult, it was not until the time of her
emergence from the catacombs that she began freely to display
her beauty and splendour in sacred song. As early as in the
pontificate of Sylvester I (314-35) we find a
regularly-constituted company of singers, under the name of
schola cantorum, living together in a building devoted to their
exclusive use. The word schola was in those days the legal
designation of an association of equals in any calling or
profession and did not primarily denote, as in our time, a
school. It had more the nature of a guild, a characteristic
which clung to the papal choir for many centuries. Hilary II
(461-8) ordained that the pontifical singers live in community,
while Gregory the Great (590-604) not only made permanent the
existing institution attached to St. John Lateran and including
at that time in its membership monks, secular clergy, and boys,
but established a second and similar one in connection with the
Basilica of St. Peter. The latter is supposed to have served as
a sort of preparatory school for the former. For several
centuries the papal schola cantorum retained the same general
character. Its head, archicantor or primicerius, was always a
clergyman of high rank and often a bishop. While it was his duty
to intone the various chants to be followed by the rest of the
singers, he was by no means their master in the modern technical
sense.
It is at the time of the transfer of the papal see from Rome to
Avignon in the thirteenth century that a marked change takes
place in the institution. Innocent IV did not take his schola
cantorum with him to his new abode, but provided for its
continuance in Rome by turning over to it properties, tithes,
and other revenues. Community life among the singers seems to
have come to an end at this period. Clement V (1305-14) formed a
new choir at Avignon, consisting for the most part of French
singers, who showed a decided preference for the new
developments in church music -- the dechant and falsibordoni,
which had in the meantime gained great vogue in France. When
Gregory XI (1370-8) returned to Rome, he took his singers with
him and amalgamated them with the still-existing, at least in
name, ancient schola cantorum. Before the sojourn of the papal
Court at Avignon, it had been the duty of the schola to
accompany the pope to the church where he held station, but
after the return to Rome, the custom established at Avignon of
celebrating all pontifical functions in the papal church or
chapel was continued and has existed ever since. The primicerius
of former times is now no longer mentioned but is replaced by
the magister capellae, which title, however, continues to be
more an honorary one held by a bishop or prelate than in
indication of technical leadership, as may be gathered from the
relative positions assigned to various dignitaris, their
prerogatives, etc. Thus the magister capellae came immediately
after the cardinals, followed, in the order given, by the
sacrista, cantores, capellani, and clerici.
With the building by Sixtus IV (1471-84) of the church for the
celebration of all papal functions since known as the Sistine
Chapel, the original schola cantorum and subsequent capella
pontificia or capella papale, which still retains more or less
of the guild character, becomes the capella sistina, or Sistine
Choir, whose golden era takes its beginning. Up to this time the
number of singers had varied considerably, there being sometimes
as few as nine men and six boys. By a Bull dated November, 1483,
Sixtus IV fixed the number at twenty-four, six for each part.
After the year 1441 the records no longer mention the presence
of boys in the choir, the high voices, soprano and alto, being
thenceforth sung by natural (and occasionally unnatural) soprani
falsetti and high tenors respectively. Membership in the papal
choir became the great desideratum of singers, contrapuntists,
and composers of every land, which accounts for the presence in
Rome, at=20least for a time, of most of the great names of that
period. The desire to re-establish a sort of preparatory school
for the papal choir, on the plan of the ancient schola, and
incidentally to become independent of the ultramontane, or
foreign, singers, singers, led Julius II (1503-13) to issue, on
19 February, 1512, a Bull founding the capella Julia, which to
this day performs all the choir duties at St. Peter's. It became
indeed, and has ever since been, a nursery for, and
stepping-stone to, membership in the Sistine Choir. The high
artistic aims of its founder have, however, but rarely been
attained, owing to the rarity of the truly great choirmasters.
Leo X (1513-21), himself a musician, by choosing as head of the
organization a real musician, irrespective of his clerical rank,
took a step which was of the greatest importance for the future.
It had the effect of transforming a group of vocal virtuosi on
equal footing into a compact vocal body, whose interpretation of
the greatest works of polyphony which we possess, and which were
then coming into existence, became the model for the rest of the
world, not only then but for all time. Leo's step was somewhat
counteracted by Sixtus V (1534-49) on 17 November, 1545,
published a Bull approving a new constitution of the choir,
which has been in force ever since, and according to which the
choir, which has been in force ever since, and according to
which the choir-master proposes the candidates for membership,
who are then examined by the whole company of singers. Since
that time the state of life of the candidate has not been a
factor.
While the Sistine Choir has, since its incipiency, undergone
many vicissitudes, its artistic and moral level fluctuating,
like all things human, with the mutations of the times, it has
ever had for its purpose and object to hold up, at the seat of
ecclesiastical authority, the highest model of liturgical music
as well as of its performance. When the Gregorian melodies were
still the sole music of the Church, it was the papal choir that
set the standard for the rest of Christendom, both s regards the
purity of the melodies and their rendition. After these melodies
had blossomed into polyphony, it was in the Sistine Chapel that
it received adequate interpretation. Here the artistic
degeneration, which church music suffered in different periods
in many countries, never took hold for any length of time. The
use of instruments, even of the organ, has ever been excluded.
The choir's ideal has always been that purely vocal style, Since
the accession of the present pope [1912], and under its present
conductor, the falsetto voices have been succeeded by boys'
voices, and the artistic level of the institute has been raised
to a higher point than it had occupied for the previous thirty
or forty years.
Haberl, Baustein fur Musikgeschicte, III, Die romische Schola
Cantorum und die papstlichen Kapellsanger bis zur Mitte des 16.
Jarhunderts (Leipzig, 1888); Schelle, Die papstliche
Sangerschule in Rom (Leipzig, 1872); Kienle, Choralschule
(Freiburg, 1899); Baini, Memorie storico-critiche della via e
delle opere di Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (Rome, 1828).
JOSEPH OTTEN
Sitifis
Sitifis
(Sitifensis).
Titular see in Mauretania Sitifensis. Sitifis, situated in
Maurentania Caesarensis, on the road from Carthage to Cirta, was
of no importance under the Numidian kings and became prominent
only when Nerva established a colony of veterans there. When
Mauretania Sitifensis was created, at the close of the third
century, Sitifis became its capital. Under the Vandals it was
the chief town of a district called Zaba. It was still the
capital of a province under Byzantine rule and was then a place
of strategic importance. Captured by the Arabs in the seventh
century, it was almost ruined at the time of the French
occupation (1838). It is now Setif, the chief town of an
arrondissement in the Department of Constantine, Algeria. It
contains 15,000 inhabitants, of whom 3700 are Europeans and
1,600 Jews; it has a trade in cattle, cereals, leather, and
cloths. Interesting Christian inscriptions are to be found
there, one of 452 mentioning the relics of St. Lawrence, another
naming two martyrs of Sitifis, Justus and Decurius; there are a
museum and the ruins of a Byzantine fortress. St. Augustine, who
had frequent relations with Sitifis, informs us that in his time
it contained a monastery and an episcopal school, and that it
suffered from a violent earthquake, on which occasion 2000
persons, through fear of death, received baptism (Ep., lxxxiv;
Serm., xix). Five bishops of this see are known: Servus, in 409,
mentioned in a letter of St. Augustine; Novatus present at the
Council of Carthage (484), and exiled by Huneric; Optatus, at
the Council of Carthage (525).
Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s. v. Sitifi; Muller
Notes a Ptolmy, ed. Didot, I. 612; Toulotte, Geog. de l'Afrique
chretienne: Mauretanie (Montreuil, 1894), 185-9; Diehl,
L'Afrique byzantine (Paris, 1896), passim.
S. PETRIDES
Buenaventura Sitjar
Buenaventura Sitjar
Born at Porrera, Island of Majorca, 9 December, 1739; died at
San Antonio, Cal., 3 Sept., 1808. In April, 1758, he received
the habit of St. Francis. After his ordination he joined the
College of San Fernando, Mexico. In 1770 he was assigned to
California, arriving at San Diego, 21 May, 1771. He was present
at the founding of the Mission of San Antonio, and was appointed
first missionary by Father Junipero Serra. He toiled there until
his death, up to which time 3400 Indians had been baptized.
Father Sitjar mastered the Telame Language, spoken at the
Mission of San Antonio, and compiled a vocabulary with Spanish
explanations, published at New York in 1861. Though the list of
words is not as long as Arroyo de la Cuesta's dictionary of 2884
words and sentences in the Mutsun idiom of Mission San Juan
Bautista, Sitjar's gives the pronunciation and fuller
explanations. He also left a journal of exploring expedition
which he accompanied in 1795. His body was interred in the
sanctuary of the church.
Archives of Mission of Santa Barbara; Records of Mission San
Antonio; SITJAR, Vocabulary, in SHEA'S Library of American
Linguistics (New York, 1861); ENGELHARDT, The Franciscans in
California (Harbor Springs, 1897); BANCROFT, California, II (San
Fancisco, 1886).
ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT
Siunia
Siunia
Siunia, a titular see, suffragan of Sebastia in Armenia Prima.
Siunia is not a town, but a province situated between Goghtcha,
Araxa, and Aghovania, in the present Russian districts of
Chamakha, or Baku, and Elisavetpol. The real name should be
Sisacan, the Persian form, for Siunia got its name from Sisac,
the son of Gegham, the fifth Armenian sovereign. Its first
rulers, vassals of the kings of Armenia or the shahs of Persia,
date back to the fourth century of our era; about 1046 it became
an independent kingdom, but only till 1166. The Church of Siunia
was established in the fifth century or perhaps a little
earlier. It soon became a metropolis subject to the Catholicos
of Armenia, and, as we see in a letter of the patriarch Ter
Sargis in 1006, it counted twelve crosiers, which must signify
twelve suffragan sees. The archdiocese contained 1400 villages
and 28 monasteries. In the ninth century the metropolitan see
was fixed in the convent of Tatheo, situated between Ouronta and
Migri, sixty-two miles south-east of Lake Gokcha. Separated for
a brief interval from Noravank, the See of Siunia was reunited
to it, but was definitively separated again in the thirteenth
century. In 1837 the Diocese of Siunia was, by order of the
Synod of Etchmiadzin, suppressed and subjected directly to the
catholicos under the supervision of the Bishop of Erivan, who
had a vicar at Tatheo. The complete list of the bishops and
metropolitans of Siunia, from the fifth century till the
nineteenth century, is known; amongst them we may mention
Petros, a writer at the beginning of the sixth century, and
Stephanos Orbelian, the historian of his Church. It is not known
why the Roman Curia introduced this episcopal title, which does
not appear in any Greek or Latin "Notitia episcopatuum", and was
never a suffragan of Sebastia.
LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I (Paris, 1740), 1443; BROSSET,
Listes chronologiques des princes et des metropolites de Siounie
in Bulletin de l'Academie des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, IV
(1862), 497-562; STEPHANOS ORERLIAN, Histoire de la Siounie, tr.
BROSSET (Saint-Petersburg, 1864).
S. VAILHE.
Pope St. Sixtus I
Pope St. Sixtus I
Pope St. Sixtus I (in the oldest documents, Xystus is the
spelling used for the first three popes of that name), succeeded
St. Alexander and was followed by St. Telesphorus. According to
the "Liberian Catalogue" of popes, he ruled the Church during
the reign of Adrian "a conulatu Nigri et Aproniani usque Vero
III et Ambibulo", that is, from 117 to 126. Eusebius, who in his
"Chronicon" made use of a catalogue of popes different from the
one he used in his "Historia ecclesiastica", states in his
"Chronicon" that Sixtus I was pope from 114 to 124, while in his
"History" he makes him rule from 114 to 128. All authorities
agree that he reigned about ten years. He was a Roman by birth,
and his father's name was Pastor. According to the "Liber
Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 128), he passed the following
three ordinances: (1) that none but sacred ministers are allowed
to touch the sacred vessels; (2) that bishops who have been
summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be
received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic
letters; (3) that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall
recite the Sanctus with the people. The "Felician Catalogue" of
popes and the various martyrologies give him the title of
martyr. His feast is celebrated on 6 April. He was buried in the
Vatican, beside the tomb of St. Peter. His relics are said to
have been transferred to Alatri in 1132, though O Jozzi ("Il
corpo di S. Sisto I., papa e martire rivendicato alla basilica
Vaticana", Rome, 1900) contends that they are still in the
Vatican Basilica. Butler (Lives of the Saints, 6 April) states
that Clement X gave some of his relics to Cardinal de Retz, who
placed them in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorraine. The Xystus
who is commemorated in the Canon of the Mass is Xystus II, not
Xystus I.
Acta SS., April, I, 531-4; Liber Pontificatis, ed. DUCHESNE, I
(Paris, 1886), 128; MARINI, Cenni storici popolari sopra S.
Sisto I, papa e martire, e suo culto in Aletri (Foligno, 1884);
DE PERSIIS, Del pontificato di S. Sisto I, papa e martire, della
translazione delle sue reliquie da Roma ecc., memorie (Alatri,
1884); BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Sixtus (2) I.
MICHAEL OTT
Pope St. Sixtus II
Pope St. Sixtus II
(XYSTUS).
Elected 31 Aug., 257, martyred at Rome, 6 Aug., 258. His origin
is unknown. The "Liber Pontificalis" says that he was a Greek by
birth, but this is probably a mistake, originating from the
false assumption that he was identical with a Greek philosopher
of the same name, who was the author of the so-called
"Sentences" of Xystus. During the pontificate of his
predecessor, St. Stephen, a sharp dispute had arisen between
Rome and the African and Asiatic Churches, concerning the
rebaptism of heretics, which had threatened to end in a complete
rupture between Rome and the Churches of Africa and Asia Minor
(see CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, SAINT). Sixtus II, whom Pontius (Vita
Cyprian, cap. xiv) styles a good and peaceful priest (bonus et
pacificus sacerdos), was more conciliatory than St. Stephen and
restored friendly relations with these Churches, though, like
his predecessor, he upheld the Roman usage of not rebaptizing
heretics.
Shortly before the pontificate of Sixtus II the Emperor Valerian
issued his first edict of persecution, which made it binding
upon the Christians to participate in the national cult of the
pagan gods and forbade them to assemble in the cemeteries,
threatening with exile or death whomsoever was found to disobey
the order. In some way or other, Sixtus II managed to perform
his functions as chief pastor of the Christians without being
molested by those who were charged with the execution of the
imperial edict. But during the first days of August, 258, the
emperor issued a new and far more cruel edict against the
Christians, the import of which has been preserved in a letter
of St. Cyprian to Successus, the Bishop of Abbir Germaniciana
(Ep. lxxx). It ordered bishops, priests, and deacons to be
summarily put to death ("episcopi et presbyteri et diacones
incontinenti animadvertantur"). Sixtus II was one of the first
to fall a victim to this imperial enactment ("Xistum in
cimiterio animadversum sciatis VIII. id. Augusti et cum eo
diacones quattuor"--Cyprian, Ep. lxxx). In order to escape the
vigilance of the imperial officers he assembled his flock on 6
August at one of the less-known cemeteries, that of
Pr=E6textatus, on the left side of the Appian Way, nearly
opposite the cemetery of St. Callistus. While seated on his
chair in the act of addressing his flock he was suddenly
apprehended by a band of soldiers. There is some doubt whether
he was beheaded forthwith, or was first brought before a
tribunal to receive his sentence and then led back to the
cemetery for execution. The latter opinion seems to be the more
probable.
The inscription which Pope Damasus (366-84) placed on his tomb
in the cemetery of St. Callistus may be interpreted in either
sense. The entire inscription is to be found in the works of St.
Damasus (P.L., XIII, 383-4, where it is wrongly supposed to be
an epitaph for Pope Stephen I), and a few fragments of it were
discovered at the tomb itself by de Rossi (Inscr. Christ., II,
108). The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions that he was led away to
offer sacrifice to the gods ("ductus ut sacrificaret
demoniis"--I, 155). St. Cyprian states in the above-named
letter, which was written at the latest one month after the
martyrdom of Sixtus, that "the prefects of the City were daily
urging the persecution in order that, if any were brought before
them, they might be punished and their property confiscated".
The pathetic meeting between St. Sixtus II and St. Lawrence, as
the former was being led to execution, of which mention is made
in the unauthentic "Acts of St. Lawrence" as well as by St.
Ambrose (Officiorum, lib. I, c. xli, and lib. II, c. xxviii) and
the poet Prudentius (Peristephanon, II), is probably a mere
legend. Entirely contrary to truth is the statement of
Prudentius (ibid., lines 23-26) that Sixtus II suffered
martyrdom on the cross, unless by an unnatural trope the poet
uses the specific word cross (" Jam Xystus adfixus cruci") for
martyrdom in general, as Duchesne and Allard (see below)
suggest. Four deacons, Januarius, Vincentius, Magnus, and
Stephanus, were apprehended with Sixtus and beheaded with him at
the same cemetery. Two other deacons, Felicissimus and Agapitus,
suffered martyrdom on the same day. The feast of St. Sixtus II
and these six deacons is celebrated on 6 August, the day of
their martyrdom. The remains of Sixtus were transferred by the
Christians to the papal crypt in the neighbouring cemetery of
St. Callistus. Behind his tomb was enshrined the bloodstained
chair on which he had been beheaded. An oratory (Oratorium
Xysti) was erected above the cemetery of St. Pr=E6textatus, at
the spot where he was martyred, and was still visited by
pilgrims of the seventh and the eighth century.
For some time Sixtus II was believed to be the author of the
so-called "Sentences", or "Ring of Sixtus", originally written
by a Pythagorean philosopher and in the second century revised
by a Christian. This error arose because in his introduction to
a Latin translation of these "Sentences". Rufinus ascribes them
to Sixtus of Rome, bishop and martyr. It is certain that Pope
Sixtus II is not their author (see Conybeare, "The Ring of Pope
Xystus now first rendered into English, with an historical and
critical commentary", London, 1910). Harnack (Texte und
Untersuchungen zur altchrist. Literatur, XIII, XX) ascribes to
him the treatise "Ad Novatianum", but his opinion has been
generally rejected (see Rombold in "Theol. Quartalschrift",
LXXII, Tuebingen, 1900). Some of his letters are printed in
P.L., V, 79-100. A newly discovered letter was published by
Conybeare in "English Hist. Review", London, 1910.
Acta SS., Aug., II, 124-42; DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, I,
155-6; BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Xystus; ROHAULT DE
FLEURY, Les Saints de la messe, III (Paris, 1893): HEALY, The
Valerian Persecution (Boston and New York, 1905); 176-9; ALLARD,
Les derni=E8res persecutions du troisi=E8me si=E8cle (Paris,
1907), 80-92, 343-349; DE ROSSI, Roma Sotteranea, II (Rome;
1864-77), 87-97; WILPERT, Die P=E4pstgraber und die
C=E4ciliengruft in der Katakombe des hl. Callistus, supplement
to De Rossi's Roma Sotteranea (Freiburg im Br., 1909).
MICHAEL OTT
Pope St. Sixtus III
Pope St. Sixtus III
(XYSTUS).
Consecrated 31 July, 432; d. 440. Previous to his accession he
was prominent among the Roman clergy and in correspondence with
St. Augustine. He reigned during the Nestorian and Pelagian
controversies, and it was probably owing to his conciliatory
disposition that he was falsely accused of leanings towards
these heresies. As pope he approved the Acts of the Council of
Ephesus and endeavoured to restore peace between Cyril of
Alexandria and John of Antioch. In the Pelagian controversy he
frustrated the attempt of Julian of Eclanum to be readmitted to
communion with the Catholic Church. He defended the pope's right
of supremacy over Illyricum against the local bishops and the
ambitious designs of Proclus of Constantinople. At Rome he
restored the Basilica of Liberius, now known as St. Mary Major,
enlarged the Basilica of St. Lawrence-Without-the-Walls, and
obtained precious gifts from the Emperor Valentinian III for St.
Peter's and the Lateran Basilica. The work which asserts that
the consul Bassus accused him of crime is a forgery. He is the
author of eight letters (in P.L., L, 583 sqq.), but he did not
write the works "On Riches", "On False Teachers", and "On
Chastity" ("De divitiis", "De malis doctoribus", "De castitate")
attributed to him. His feast is kept on 28 March.
DUCHESNE (ed.), Lib. Pont., I (Paris, 1886), 126-27, 232-37;
BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Sixtus (3); GRISAR, History
of Rome and the Popes, tr. CAPPADELTA, I (St. Louis, 1911), nos.
54, 135, 140, 144, 154.
N.A. WEBER
Pope Sixtus IV
Pope Sixtus IV
(FRANCESCO DELLA ROVERE)
Born near Abisola, 21 July, 1414; died 12 Aug., 1484. His
parents were poor, and while still a child he was destined for
the Franciscan order. Later he studied philosophy and theology
with great success at the University of Pavia, and lectured at
Padua, Bologna, Pavia, Siena, and Florence, having amongst other
eminent disciples the famous Cardinal Bessarion. After filling
the post of procurator of his order in Rome and Provincial of
Liguria, he was in 1467 created Cardinal of S. Pietro in Vincoli
by Paul II. Whatever leisure he now had was devoted to theology,
and in 1470 he published a treatise on the Precious blood and a
work on the Immaculate Conception, in which latter he
endeavoured to prove that Aquinas and Scotus, though differing
in words, were really of one mind upon the question. The
conclave which assembled on the death of Paul II elected him
pope, and he ascended the chair of St. Peter as Sixtus IV.
His first thought was the prosecution of the war against the
Turks, and legates were appointed for France, Spain, Germany,
Hungary, and Poland, with the hope of enkindling enthusiasm in
these countries. The crusade, however, achieved little beyond
the bringing back to Rome of twenty-five Turkish prisoners, who
were paraded in triumph through the streets of the city. Sixtus
continued the policy of his predecessor Paul II with regard to
France, and denounced Louis XI for insisting on the royal
consent being given before papal decrees could be published in
his kingdom. He also made an effort like his predecessor for the
reunion of the Russian Church with Rome, but his negotiations
were without result. He now turned his attention almost
exclusively to Italian politics, and fell more and more under
his dominating passion of nepotism, heaping riches and favours
on his unworthy relations. In 1478 took place the famous
conspiracy of the Pazzi, planned by the pope's nephew --
Cardinal Rafael Riario -- to overthrow the Medici and bring
Florence under the Riarii. The pope was cognizant of the plot,
though probably not of the intention to assassinate, and even
had Florence under interdict because it rose in fury against the
conspirators and brutal murderers of Giuliano de' Medici. He now
entered upon a two years' war with Florence, and encouraged the
Venetians to attack Ferrara, which he wished to obtain for his
nephew Girolamo Riario. Ercole d'Este, attacked by Venice, found
allies in almost every Italian state, and Ludovico Sforza, upon
whom the pope relied for support, did nothing to help him. The
allied princes forced Sixtus to make peace, and the chagrin
which this caused him is said to have hastened his death.
Henceforth, until the Reformation, the secular interests of the
papacy were of paramount importance. The attitude of Sixtus
towards the conspiracy of the Pazzi, his wars and treachery, his
promotion to the highest offices in the Church of such men as
Pietro and Girolamo are blots upon his career. Nevertheless,
there is a praiseworthy side to his pontificate. He took
measures to suppress abuses in the Inquisition, vigorously
opposed the Waldenses, and annulled the decrees of the Council
of Constance. He was a patron of arts and letters, building the
famous Sistine Chapel, the Sistine Bridge across the Tiber, and
becoming the second founder of the Vatican Library. Under him
Rome once more became habitable, and he did much to improve the
sanitary conditions of the city. He brought down water from the
Quirinal to the Fountain of Trevi, and began a transformation of
the city which death alone hindered him from completing. In his
private life Sixtus IV was blameless. The gross accusations
brought against him by his enemy Infessura have no foundation;
his worst vice was nepotism, and his greatest misfortune was
that he was destined to be placed at the head of the States of
the Church at a time when Italy was emerging from the era of the
republics, and territorial princes like the pope were forced to
do battle with the great despots.
PASTOR, History of the Popes, IV (London, 1894); GREGOROVIUS,
Rome in the Middle Ages, IV (London, 1901); BURKHARDT,
Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien (1904); FRANTZ, Sixtus IV
und die Republik Florenz (Ratisbon, 1880).
R. URBAN BUTLER
Pope Sixtus V
Pope Sixtus V
(FELICE PERETTI).
Born at Grottamare near Montalto, 13 December, 1521; elected 24
April, 1585; crowned 1 May, 1585; died in the Quirinal, 27
August, 1590. He belonged to a Dalmatian family which in the
middle of the preceding century had fled to Italy from the Turks
who were devastating Illyria and threatened to invade Dalmatia.
His father was a gardener and it is said of Felice that, when a
boy, he was a swineherd. At the age of nine he came to the
Minorite convent at Montalto, where his uncle, Fra Salvatore,
was a friar. Here he became a novice at the age of twelve. He
was educated at Montalto, Ferrara, and Bologna and was ordained
at Siena in 1547. The talented young priest gained a high
reputation as a preacher. At Rome, where in 1552 he preached the
Lenten sermons in the Church of Santi Apostoli, his successful
preaching gained for him the friendship of very influential men,
such as Cardinal Carpi, the protector of his order; the
Cardinals Caraffa and Ghislieri, both of whom became popes; St.
Philip Neri and St. Ignatius. He was successively appointed
rector of his convent at Siena in 1550, of San Lorenzo at Naples
in 1553, and of the convent of the Frari at Venice in 1556. A
year later Pius IV appointed him also counselor to the
Inquisition at Venice. His zeal and severity in the capacity of
inquisitor displeased the Venetian Government, which demanded
and obtained his recall in 1560. Having returned to Rome he was
made counsellor to the Holy Office, professor at the Sapienza,
and general procurator and vicar Apostolic of his order. In 1565
Pius IV designated him to accompany to Spain Cardinal
Buoncompagni (afterwards Gregory XIII), who was to investigate a
charge of heresy against Archbishop Carranza of Toledo. From
this time dates the antipathy between Peretti and Buoncompagni,
which declared itself more openly during the latter's
pontificate (1572-85). Upon his return to Rome in 1566 Pius V
created him Bishop of Sant' Agata dei Goti in the Kingdom of
Naples and later chose him as his confessor. On 17 May, 1570,
the same pope created him cardinal-priest with the titular
Church of S. Simeone, which he afterwards exchanged for that of
S. Girolamo dei Schiavoni. In 1571 he was transferred to the See
of Fermo. He was popularly known as the Cardinal di Montalto.
During the pontificate of Gregory XIII he withdrew from public
affairs, devoting himself to study and to the collection of
works of art, as far as his scanty means permitted. During this
time he edited the works of St. Ambrose (Rome, 1579-1585) and
erected a villa (now Villa Massimi) on the Esquiline.
Gregory XIII died on 10 April 1585, and after a conclave of four
days Peretti was elected pope by "adoration" on 24 April, 1585.
He took the name Sixtus V in memory of Sixtus IV, who had also
been a Minorite. The legend that he entered the conclave on
crutches, feigning the infirmities of old age, and upon his
election exultantly thrust aside his crutches and appeared full
of life and vigour has long been exploded; it may, however, have
been invented as a symbol of his forced inactivity during the
reign of Gregory XIII and the remarkable energy which he
displayed during the five years of his pontificate. He was a
born ruler and especially suited to stem the tide of disorder
and lawlessness which had broken out towards the end of the
reign of Gregory XIII. Having obtained the co-operation of the
neighbouring states, he exterminated, often with excessive
cruelty, the system of brigandage which had reached immense
proportions and terrorized the whole of Italy. The number of
bandits in and about Rome at the death of Gregory XIII has been
variously estimated at from twelve to twenty-seven thousand, and
in little more than two years after the accession of Sixtus V
the Papal States had become the most secure country in Europe.
Of almost equal importance with the extermination of the bandits
was, in the opinion of Sixtus V, the rearrangement of the papal
finances. At his accession the papal exchequer was empty. Acting
on his favourite principle that riches as well as severity are
necessary for good government, he used every available means to
replenish the state treasury. So successful was he in the
accumulation of money that, despite his enormous expenditures
for public buildings, he had shortly before his death deposited
in the Castello di Sant' Angelo three million scudi in gold and
one million six hundred thousand in silver. He did not consider
that in the long run so much dead capital withdrawn from
circulation was certain to impoverish the country and deal the
death-blow to commerce and industry. To obtain such vast sums he
economized everywhere, except in works of architecture;
increased the number of salable public offices; imposed more
taxes and extended the monti, or public loans, that had been
instituted by Clement VII. Though extremely economical in other
ways, Sixtus V spent immense sums in erection of public works.
He built the Lateran Palace; completed the Quirinal; restored
the Church of Santa Sabina on the Aventine; rebuilt the Church
and Hospice of San Girolamo dei Schiavoni; enlarged and improved
the Sapienza; founded the hospice for the poor near the Ponte
Sisto; built and richly ornamented the Chapel of the Cradle in
the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore; completed the cupola of
St. Peter's; raised the obelisks of the Vatican, of Santa Maria
Maggiore, of the Lateran, and of Santa Maria del Popolo;
restored the columns of Trajan and of Antoninus Pius, placing
the statue of St. Peter on the former and that of St. Paul on
the latter; erected the Vatican Library with its adjoining
printing-office and that wing of the Vatican Palace which is
inhabited by the pope; built many magnificent streets; erected
various monasteries; and supplied Rome with water, the "Acqua
Felice", which he brought to the city over a distance of twenty
miles, partly under ground, partly on elevated aqueducts. At
Bologna he founded the Collegio Montalto for fifty students from
the March of Ancona.
Far-reaching were the reforms which Sixtus V introduced in the
management of ecclesiastical affairs. On 3 Dec., 1586, he issued
the Bull "Postquam verus", fixing the number of cardinals at
seventy, namely, six cardinal-bishops, fifty cardinal-priests,
and fourteen cardinal-deacons. Before his pontificate,
ecclesiastical business was generally discharged by the pope in
consistory with the cardinals. There were, indeed, a few
permanent cardinalitial congregations, but the sphere of their
competency was very limited. In his Bull "Immensa aeterni Dei",
of 11 February, 1588, he established fifteen permanent
congregations, some of which were concerned with spiritual,
others with temporal affairs. They were the Congregations: (1)
of the Inquisition; (2) of the Segnatura; (3) for the
Establishment of Churches; (4) of Rites and Ceremonies; (5) of
the Index of Forbidden Books; (6) of the Council of Trent (7);
of the Regulars; (8) of the Bishops; (9) of the Vatican Press;
(10) of the Annona, for the provisioning of Rome and the
provinces; (11) of the Navy; (12) of the Public Welfare; (13) of
the Sapienza; (14) of Roads, Bridges, and Waters; (15) of State
Consultations. These congregations lessened the work of the
pope, without in any way limiting his authority. The final
decision belonged to the pope. In the creation of cardinals
Sixtus V was, as a rule, guided by their good qualities. The
only suspicion of nepotism with which he might be reproached was
giving the purple to his fourteen-year-old grand-nephew
Alessandro, who, however did honour to the Sacred College and
never wielded an undue influence.
In 1588 he issued from the Vatican Press an edition of the
Septuagint revised according to a Vatican MS. His edition of the
Vulgate, printed shortly before his death, was withdrawn from
circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and
reissued in 1592 (see BELLARMINE, ROBERT FRANCIS ROMULUS,
VENERABLE). Though a friend of the Jesuits, he objected to some
of their rules and especially to the title "Society of Jesus".
He was on the point of changing these when death overtook him. A
statue which had been erected in his honour on the Capitol
during his lifetime was torn down by the rabble immediately upon
his death. (For his relations with the various temporal rulers
and his attempts to stem the tide of Protestantism, see THE
COUNTER-REFORMATION).
VON HUBNER, Sixte-Quint (Paris, 1870), tr. JERNINGHAM (London,
1872); BALZANI, Rome under Sixtus V in Cambridge Modern History,
III (London, 1905), 422-55; ROBARDI, Sixti V gesta guinquennalia
(Rome, 1590); LETI, Vita di Sisto V (Losanna, 1669), tr.
FARNEWORTH (London, 1754), unreliable; TEMPESTI, Storia della
vita e geste di Sisto V (Rome, 1755); CESARE, Vita di Sisto V
(Naples, 1755); LORENTZ, Sixtus V und seine Zeit (Mainz, 1852);
DUMESNIL, Hist. de Sixte-Quint (Paris, 1869); CAPRANICA, Papa
Sixto, storia del s. XVI (Milan, 1884); GRAZIANI, Sisto V e la
riorganizzazione della s. Sede (Rome, 1910); GOZZADINI, Giovanni
Pepoli e Sisto V (Bologna, 1879); SEGRETAIN, Sixte-Quint et
Henri IV (Paris, 1861); CUGNONI, Memorie autografe di Papa Sisto
V in Archivio della Soc. Romana di storia patria (Rome, 1882);
BENADDUCI, Sisto documento inedito per la storia di Sisto V
(Venice, 1896); ROSSI-SCOTTI, Pompilio Eusebi da Perugia e Sisto
papa V (Perugia, 1893); PAOLI, Sisto V e i banditi (Sassari,
1902); HARPER in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Review, III
(Philadelphia, 1878), 498-521.
MICHAEL OTT
Peter Skarga
Peter Skarga
Theologian and missionary, b. at Grojec, 1536; d. at Cracow, 27
Sept., 1612. He began his education in his native town in 1552;
he went to study in Cracow and afterwards in Warsaw. In 1557 he
was in Vienna as tutor to the young Castellan, Teczynski;
returning thence in 1564, he received Holy orders, and later was
nominated canon of Lemberg Cathedral. Here he began to preach
his famous sermons, and to convert Protestants. In 1568 he
entered the Society of Jesus and went to Rome, where he became
penitentiary for the Polish language at St. Peter's. Returning
to Poland, he worked in the Jesuit colleges of Pultusk and
Wilna, where he converted a multitude of Protestants, Calvinism
being at the time prevalent in those parts. To this end he first
published some works of controversy; and in 1576, in order to
convince the numerous schismatics in Poland, he issued his great
treatise "On the Unity of the Church of God", which did much
good then, and is even now held in great esteem. It powerfully
promoted the cause of the Union. King Stephen Bathori prized
Skarga greatly, often profited by his aid and advice, took him
on one of his expeditions, and made him rector of the Academy of
Wilna, founded in 1578. In 1584 he was sent to Cracow as
superior, and founded there the Brotherhood of Mercy and the
"Mons pietatis", meanwhile effecting numerous conversions. He
was appointed court preacher by Sigismund III in 1588, and for
twenty-four years filled this post to the great advantage of the
Church and the nation. In 1596 the Ruthenian Church was united
with Rome, largely through his efforts. When the nobles, headed
by Zebrzydowski, revolted against Sigismund III, Skarga was sent
on a mission of conciliation to the rebels, which, however,
proved fruitless. Besides the controversial works mentioned,
Skarga published a "History of the Church", and "Lives of the
Saints" (Wilna, 1579; 25th ed., Lemberg, 1883-84), possibly the
most widely read book in Poland. But most important of all are
his "Sermons for Sundays and Holidays" (Cracow, 1595) and
"Sermons on the Seven Sacraments" (Cracow, 1600), which, besides
their glowing eloquence, are profound and instructive. In
addition to these are "Sermons on Various Occasions" and the
"Sermons Preached to the Diet". These last for inspiration and
feeling are the finest productions in the literature of Poland
before the Partitions. Nowhere are there found such style,
eloquence, and patriotism, with the deepest religious
conviction. Skarga occupies a high place in the literature and
the history of Poland. His efforts to convert heretics, to
restore schismatics to unity, to prevent corruption, and to stem
the tide of public and political license, tending even then
towards anarchy, were indeed as to this last point unsuccessful;
but that was the nation's fault, not his.
S. TARNOWSKI
Josef Skoda
Josef Skoda (Schkoda)
Celebrated clinical lecturer and diagnostician and, with
Rokitansky, founder of the modern medical school of Vienna, b.
at Pilsen in Bohemia, 10 December, 1805; d. at Vienna, 13 June,
1881. Skoda was the son of a locksmith. He attended the
gymnasium at Pilsen, entered the University of Vienna in 1825,
and received the degree of Doctor of Medicine on 10 July, 1831.
He first served in Bohemia as physician during the outbreak of
cholera, was assistant physician in the general hospital of
Vienna, 1832-38, in 1839 city physician of Vienna for the poor,
and on 13 February, 1840, on the recommendation of Dr. Ludwig,
Freiherr von Tuerkheim, chairman of the imperial committee of
education, was appointed to the unpaid position of chief
physician of the department for consumptives just opened in the
general hospital. In 1846, thanks to the energetic measures of
Karl Rokitansky, professor of pathological anatomy, he was
appointed professor of the medical clinic against the wishes of
the rest of the medical faculty. In 1848 he began to lecture in
German instead of Latin, being the first professor to adopt this
course. On 17 July, 1848, he was elected an active member of the
mathematico-physical section of the Academy of Sciences. Early
in 1871 he retired from his professorship, and the occasion was
celebrated by the students and the population of Vienna by a
great torchlight procession in his honour. Rokitansky calls him
"a light for those who study, a model for those who strive, and
a rock for those who despair". Skoda's benevolent disposition is
best shown by the fact that, notwithstanding his large income
and known simplicity of life, he left a comparatively small
fortune, and in his will bequeathed legacies to a number of
benevolent institutions.
Skoda's great merit lies in his development of the methods of
physical investigation. The discovery of the method of
percussion diagnosis made in 1761 by the Viennese physician,
Leopold Auenbrugger (1722-1809), had been forgotten, and the
knowledge of it was first revived in 1808 by Corvisart
(1755-1821), court-physician to Napoleon I. Laennec (1787-1826)
and his pupils Piorry and Bouillaud added auscultation to this
method. Skoda began his clinical studies in close connexion with
pathological anatomy while assistant physician of the hospital,
but his superiors failed to understand his course, and in 1837,
by way of punishment, transferred him to the ward for the
insane, as it was claimed that the patients were annoyed by his
investigations, especially by the method of percussion. His
first publication, "Ueber die Perkussion" in the "Medizinische
Jahrbuecher des k.k. oesterreichen Kaiserstaates", IX (1836),
attracted but little attention. This paper was followed by:
"Ueber den Herzstoss und die durch die Herzbewegungen
verursachten Toene und ueber die Anwendung der Perkussion bei
Untersuchung der Organe des Unterleibes", in the same
periodical, vols XIII, XIV (1837); "Ueber Abdominaltyphus und
dessen Behandlung mit Alumen crudum", also in the same
periodical, vol. XV (1838); "Untersuchungsmethode zur Bestimmung
des Zustandes des Herzens", vol. XVIII (1839); "Ueber
Pericarditis in pathologisch-anatomischer und diagnostischer
Beziehung", XIX (1839); "Ueber Piorrys Semiotik und Diagnostik",
vol. XVIII (1839); "Ueber die Diagnose der Herzklappenfehler",
vol. XXI (1840). His small but up to now unsurpassed chief work,
"Abhandlung ueber die Perkussion und Auskultation" (Vienna,
1839), has been repeatedly published and translated into foreign
languages. It established his universal renown as a
diagnostician. In 1841, after a journey for research to Paris,
he made a separate division in his department for skin diseases
and thus gave the first impulse towards the reorganization of
dermatology by Ferdinand Hebra. In 1848 at the request of the
ministry of education he drew up a memorial on the
reorganization of the study of medicine, and encouraged later by
his advice the founding of the present higher administration of
the medical school of Vienna. As regards therapeutics the
accusation was often made against him that he held to the
"Nihilism" of the Vienna School. As a matter of fact his
therapeutics were exceedingly simple in contrast to the great
variety of remedial agents used at that time, which he regarded
as useless, as in his experience many ailments were cured
without medicines, merely by suitable medical supervision and
proper diet. His high sense of duty as a teacher, the large
amount of work he performed as a physician, and the early
appearance of organic heart-trouble are probably the reasons
that from 1848 he published less and less. The few papers which
he wrote from 1850 are to be found in the transactions of the
Academy of Sciences and the periodical of the Society of
Physicians of Vienna of which he was the honorary president.
DRASCHE, Skoda (Vienna, 1881).
LEOPOLD SENFELDER
Slander
Slander
Slander is the attributing to another of a fault of which one
knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, that
which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor's good
name and that of lying as well. Theologians say that this latter
guilt considered in itself, in so far as it is an offence
against veracity, may not be grievous, but that nevertheless it
will frequently be advisable to mention it in confession, in
order that the extent and method of reparation may be settled.
The important thing to note of slander is that it is a lesion of
our neighbor's right to his reputation. Hence moralists hold
that it is not specifically distinct from mere detraction. For
the purpose of determining the species of this sin, the manner
in which the injury is done is negligible. There is, however,
this difference between slander and detraction: that, whereas
there are circumstances in which we may lawfully expose the
misdeeds which another has actually committed, we are never
allowed to blacken his name by charging him with what he has not
done. A lie is intrinsically evil and can never be justified by
any cause or in any circumstances. Slander involves a violation
of commutative justice and therefore imposes on its perpetrator
the obligation of restitution. First of all, he must undo the
injury of the defamation itself. There seems in general to be
only one adequate way to do this: he must simply retract his
false statement. Moralists say that if he can make full
atonement by declaring that he has made a mistake, this will be
sufficient; otherwise he must unequivocally take back his
untruth, even at the expense of exhibiting himself a liar. In
addition he is bound to make compensation to his victim for
whatever losses may have been sustained as a result of his
malicious imputation. It is supposed that the damage which
ensues has been in some measure foreseen by the slanderer.
JOSEPH F. DELANY
Slavery and Christianity
Slavery and Christianity
How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity
made its appearance, how hard was their lot, and how the
competition of slave labour crushed free labour is notorious. It
is the scope of this article to show what Christianity has done
for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world, next
in that society which was the result of the barbarian invasions,
and lastly in the modern world.
I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY
The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came
from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea
under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law
was merciful to the slave (Ex., xxi; Lev., xxv; Deut., xv, xxi)
and carefully secured his fair wage to the labourer (Deut.,
xxiv, 15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of
contempt, because labour was not despised as it was elsewhere.
No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas
and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society
which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As
this society included, from the first, faithful of all
conditions -- rich and poor, slaves and freemen -- the Apostles
were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social
inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For
as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on
Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond
nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one
in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 27-28; cf. I Cor., xii, 13). From
this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was
not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian
equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not
effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is,
influencing it for its transformation through, and only through,
individual souls. What it demands in the first place from
masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren -- commanding
with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the
master of all - obeying with fear, but without servile flattery,
in simplicity of hear, as they would obey Christ (cf. Eph., vi,
9; Col. iii, 22-4; iv, 1).
This language was understood by masters and by slaves who became
converts to Christianity. But many slaves who were Christians
had pagan masters to whom this sentiment of fraternity was
unknown, and who sometimes exhibited that cruelty of which
moralists and poets so often speak. To such slaves St. Peter
points out their duty: to be submissive "not only to the good
and gentle, but also to the froward", not with a mere inert
resignation, but to give a good example and to imitate Christ,
Who also suffered unjustly (I Peter, ii, 18, 23-4. In the eyes
of the Apostles, a slave's condition, peculiarly wretched,
peculiarly exposed to temptations, bears all the more
efficacious testimony to the new religion. St. Paul recommends
slaves to seek in all things to please their masters, not to
contradict them, to do them no wrong, to honour them, to be
loyal to them, so as to make the teaching of God Our Saviour
shine forth before the eyes of all, and to prevent that name and
teaching from being blasphemed (cf. I Tim, vi, 1; Tit., ii, 9,
10). The apostolic writings show how large a place slaves
occupied in the Church Nearly all the names of the Christians
whom St. Paul salutes in his Epistles to the Romans are servile
cognomina: the two groups whom he calls "those of the household
of Aristobulus and "those of the household of Narcissus"
indicate Christian servitors of those two contemporaries of
Nero. His Epistle, written from Rome to the Philippians (iv, 22)
bears them greeting from the saints of Caesar's household, i.e.
converted slaves of the imperial palace.
One fact which, in the Church, relieved the condition of the
slave was the absence among Christians of the ancient scorn of
labour (Cicero, "De off.", I, xlii; Pro Flacco", xviii; "pro
domo", xxxiii; Suetonius, "Claudius, xxii; Seneca, "De
beneficiis", xviii; Valerius Maximus, V, ii, 10). Converts to
the new religion knew that Jesus had been a carpenter; they saw
St. Paul exercise the occupation of a tentmaker (Acts, xviii, 3;
I Cor, iv, 12). "Neither did we et any man's bread", said the
Apostle, "for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night
and day, lest we should be chargeable to any you (II Thess.,
iii, 8; cf. Acts, xx, 33, 34). Such an example, given at a time
when those who laboured were accounted "the dregs of the city",
and those who did not labour lived on the public bounty,
constituted a very efficacious form of preaching. A new
sentiment was thereby introduced into the Roman world, while at
the same time a formal discipline was being established in the
Church. It would have none of those who made a parade of their
leisurely curiosity in the Greek and Roman cities (II Thess.,
iii, 11). It declared that those who do not labour do not
deserve to be fed (ibid., 10). A Christian was not permitted to
live without an occupation (Didache, xii).
Religious equality was the negation of slavery as it was
practiced by pagan society. It must have been an exaggeration,
no doubt, to say, as one author of the first century said, that
"slaves had no religion, or had only foreign religions"
(Tacitus, "Annals", XIV, xliv): many were members of funerary
collegia under the invocation of Roman divinities (Statutes of
the College of Lanuvium, "Corp. Inscr. lat.", XIV, 2112). But in
many circumstances this haughty and formalist religion excluded
slaves from its functions, which, it was held, their presence
would have defiled. (Cicero, "Octavius", xxiv). Absolute
religious equality, as proclaimed by Christianity, was therefore
a novelty. The Church made no account of the social condition of
the faithful. Bond and free received the same sacraments.
Clerics of servile origin were numerous (St. Jerome, Ep.
lxxxii). The very Chair of St. Peter was occupied by men who had
been slaves -- Pius in the second century, Callistus in the
third. So complete -- one might almost say, so levelling -- was
this Christian equality that St. Paul (I Tim., vi, 2), and,
later, St. Ignatius (Polyc., iv), are obliged to admonish the
slave and the handmaid not to contemn their masters, "believers
like them and sharing in the same benefits". In giving them a
place in religious society, the Church restored to slaves the
family and marriage. In Roman, law, neither legitimate marriage,
nor regular paternity, nor even impediment to the most unnatural
unions had existed for the slave (Digest, XXXVIII, viii, i,
(sect) 2; X, 10, (sect) 5). That slaves often endeavoured to
override this abominable position is touchingly proved by
innumerable mortuary inscriptions; but the name of uxor, which
the slave woman takes in these inscriptions, is very precarious,
for no law protects her honour, and with her there is no
adultery (Digest, XLVIII, v, 6; Cod. Justin., IX, ix, 23). In
the Church the marriage of slaves is a sacrament; it possesses
"the solidity" of one (St. Basil, Ep. cxcix, 42). The Apostolic
Constitutions impose upon the master the duty of making his
slave contract "a legitimate marriage" (III, iv; VIII, xxxii).
St. John Chrysostom declares that slaves have the marital power
over their wives and the paternal over their children ("In Ep.
ad Ephes.", Hom. xxii, 2). He says that "he who has immoral
relations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has
the like relations with the wife of the prince: both are
adulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that
makes the crime" ("In I Thess.", Hom. v, 2; "In II Thess.", Hom.
iii, 2).
In the Christian cemeteries there is no difference between the
tombs of slaves and those of the free. The inscriptions on pagan
sepulchres -- whether the columbarium common to all the servants
of one household, or the burial plot of a funerary collegium of
slaves or freedmen, or isolated tombs -- always indicate the
servile condition. In Christian epitaphs it is hardly ever to be
seen ("Bull. di archeol. christiana", 1866, p. 24), though
slaves formed a considerable part of the Christian population.
Sometimes we find a slave honoured with a more pretentious
sepulchre than others of the faithful, like that of Ampliatus in
the cemetery of Domitilla ("Bull. di archeol. christ.", 1881,
pp. 57-54, and pl. III, IV). This is particularly so in the case
of slaves who were martyrs: the ashes of two slaves, Protus and
Hyacinthus, burned alive in the Valerian persecution. had been
wrapped in a winding-sheet of gold tissue (ibid., 1894, p. 28).
Martyrdom eloquently manifests the religious equality of the
slave: he displays as much firmness before the menaces of the
persecutor as does the free man. Sometimes it is not for the
Faith alone that a slave woman dies, but for the faith and
chastity equally threatened -- "pro fide et castitate occisa
est" ("Acta S. Dulae" in Acta SS., III March, p. 552). Beautiful
assertions of this moral freedom are found in the accounts of
the martyrdoms of the slaves Ariadne, Blandina, Evelpistus,
Potamienna, Felicitas, Sabina, Vitalis, Porphyrus, and many
others (see Allard, "Dix lec,ons sur le martyre", 4th ed., pp.
155-- 64). The Church made the enfranchisement of the slave an
act of disinterested charity. Pagan masters usually sold him his
liberty for his market value, on receipt of his painfully
amassed savings (Cicero, "Philipp. VIII", xi; Seneca "Ep.
lxxx"); true Christians gave it to him as an alms. Sometimes the
Church redeemed slaves out of its common resources (St.
Ignatius, "Polyc.", 4; Apos. Const., IV, iii). Heroic Christians
are known to have sold themselves into slavery to deliver slaves
(St. Clement, "Cor.", 4; "Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii" in Acts
SS., Jan., II, p. 506). Many enfranchised all the slaves they
had. In pagan antiquity wholesale enfranchisements are frequent,
but they never include all the owner's slaves, end they are
always by testamentary disposition -- that is when the owner
cannot be impoverished by his own bounty, (Justinian, "Inst.",
I, vii; "Cod. Just.", VII, iii, 1). Only Christians enfranchised
all their slaves in the owner's lifetime, thus effectually
despoiling themselves a considerable part of their fortune (see
Allard, "Les esclaves chretiens", 4th ed., p. 338). At the
beginning of the fifth century, a Roman millionaire, St.
Melania, gratuitously granted liberty to so many thousand of
slaves that her biographer declares himself unable to give their
exact number (Vita S. Melaniae, xxxiv). Palladius mentions eight
thousand slaves freed (Hist. Lausiaca, cxix), which, taking the
average price of a slave as about $100, would represent a value
of $800,000 [1913 dollars]. But Palladius wrote before 406,
which was long before Melania had completely exhausted her
immense fortune in acts of liberality of all kinds (Rampolla,
"S. Melania Giuniore", 1905, p. 221).
Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it
acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of
its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have
been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition
of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not
having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated
it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful
revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have
perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il
tramonto della schiavitu, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that
primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a
society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the
Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is
to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In
St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most
energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and
again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom's discourse we
have the picture of a society without slaves - a society
composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he
traces with the most eloquent insistence (see the texts cited in
Allard, "Les esclaves chretiens", p. 416-23).
II. THE CHURCH AND SLAVERY AFTER THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the
legislative movement which took place during the same period in
regard to slaves. From Augustus to Constantine statutes and
jurisprudence tended to afford them greater protection against
ill- treatment and to facilitate enfranchisement. Under the
Christian emperors this tendency, in spite of relapses at
certain points, became daily more marked, and ended, in the
sixth century, in Justinian's very liberal legislation (see
Wallon, "Hist. de l'esclavage dans l'antiquite", III, ii and x).
Although the civil law on slavery still lagged behind the
demands of Christianity ("The laws of Caesar are one thing, the
laws of Christ another", St. Jerome writes in "Ep. lxxvii"),
nevertheless very great progress had been made. It continued in
the Eastern Empire (laws of Basil the Macedonian, of Leo the
Wise, of Constantine Porphyrogenitus), but in the West it was
abruptly checked by the barbarian invasions. Those invasions
were calamitous for the slaves, increasing their numbers which
had began to diminish, and subjecting them to legislation and to
customs much harder than those which obtained under the Roman
law of the period (see Allard, "Les origines du servage" in
"Rev. des questions historiques", April, 1911. Here again the
Church intervened. It did so in three ways: redeeming slaves;
legislating for their benefit in its councils; setting an
example of kind treatment. Documents of the fifth to the seventh
century are full of instances of captives carried off from
conquered cities by the barbarians and doomed to slavery, whom
bishops, priests, and monks, and pious laymen redeemed. Redeemed
captives were sometimes sent back in thousands to their own
country (ibid., p. 393-7, and Lesne, "Hist de la propriete
ecclesiastique en France", 1910, pp. 357-69).
The Churches of Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Italy were incessantly
busy, in numerous councils, with the affairs of slaves;
protection of the maltreated slave who has taken refuge in a
church (Councils of Orleans, 511, 538, 549; Council of Epone,
517); those manumitted in ecclesiis, but also those freed by any
other process (Council of Arles, 452; of Agde, 506; of Orleans,
549; of Macon, 585; of Toledo, 589, 633; of Paris, 615);
validity of marriage contracted with full knowledge of the
circumstances between free persons and slaves ((Councils of
Verberie, 752, of Compiegne, 759); rest for slaves on Sundays
and feast days (Council of Auxerrre, 578 or 585; of
Chalon-sur-Saone, middle of the seventh century; of Rouen, 650;
of Wessex, 691; of Berghamsted, 697); prohibition of Jews to
possess Christian slaves (Council of Orleans, 541; of Macon,
581; of Clichy, 625; of Toledo, 589, 633, 656); suppression of
traffic in slaves by forbidding their sale outside the kingdom
(Council of Chalon-sur-Saone, between 644 and 650); prohibition
against reducing a free man to slavery (Council of Clichy, 625).
Less liberal in this respect than Justinian (Novella cxxiii,
17), who made tacit consent a sufficient condition, the Western
discipline does not permit a slave to be raised to the
priesthood without the formal consent of his master;
nevertheless the councils held at Orleans in 511, 538, 549,
while imposing canonical penalties upon the bishop who exceeded
his authority in this matter, declare such an ordination to be
valid. A council held at Rome in 595 under the presidency of St.
Gregory the Great permits the slave to become a monk without any
consent, express or tacit, of his master.
At this period the Church found itself becoming a great
proprietor. Barbarian converts endowed it largely with real
property. As these estates were furnished with serfs attached to
the cultivation of the soil, the Church became by force of
circumstances a proprietor of human beings, for whom, in these
troublous times, the relation was a great blessing. The laws of
the barbarians, amended through Christian influence, gave
ecclesiastical serfs a privileged position: their rents were
fixed; ordinarily, they were bound to give the proprietor half
of their labour or half of its products, the remainder being
left to them (Lex Alemannorum, xxii; Lex Bajuvariorum, I, xiv,
6). A council of the sixth century (Eauze, 551) enjoins upon
bishops that they must exact of their serfs a lighter service
than that performed by the serfs of lay proprietors, and must
remit to them one-fourth of their rents.
Another advantage of ecclesiastical serfs was the permanency of
their position. A Roman law of the middle of the fourth century
(Cod. Just., XI, xlvii, 2) had forbidden rural slaves to be
removed from the lands to which they belonged; this was the
origin of serfdom, a much better condition than slavery properly
so called. But the barbarians virtually suppressed this
beneficent law (Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Franc.", VI, 45); it
was even formally abrogated among the Goths of Italy by the
edict of Theodoric (sect. 142). Nevertheless, as an exceptional
privilege, it remained in force for the serfs of the Church,
who, like the Church itself remained under Roman law (Lex
Burgondionum, LVIII, i; Louis I, "Add. ad legem Langobard.",
III, i). They shared besides, the inalienability of all
ecclesiastical property which had been established by councils
(Rome, 50; Orleans, 511, 538; Epone, 517; Clichy, 625; Toledo,
589); they were sheltered from the exactions of the royal
officers by the immunity granted to almost all church lands
(Kroell, "L'immunite franque", 19110); thus their position was
generally envied (Flodoard, "Hist eccl. Remensis", I, xiv), and
when the royal liberality assigned to a church a portion of land
out of the state property, the serfs who cultivated were loud in
their expression of joy (Vita S. Eligii, I, xv).
It has been asserted that the ecclesiastical serfs were less
fortunately situated because the inalienability of church
property prevented their being enfranchised. But this is
inexact. St. Gregory the Great enfranchised serfs of the Roman
Church (Ep. vi, 12), and there is frequent discussion in the
councils in regard to ecclesiastical freedmen. The Council of
Agde (506) gives the bishop the right to enfranchise those serfs
"who shall have deserved it" and to leave them a small
patrimony. A Council of Orleans (541) declares that even if the
bishop has dissipated the property of his church, the serfs whom
he has freed in reasonable number (numero competenti) are to
remain free. A Merovingian formula shows a bishop enfranchising
one-tenth of his serfs (Formulae Biturgenses, viii). The Spanish
councils imposed greater restrictions, recognizing the right of
a bishop to enfranchise the serfs of his church on condition of
his indemnifying it out of his own private property (Council of
Seville, 590; of Toledo, 633; of Merida, 666). But they made it
obligatory to enfranchise the serf in whom a serious vocation
was discerned (Council of Saragossa, 593). An English council
(Celchyte, 816) orders that at the death of a bishop all the
other bishops and all the abbots shall enfranchise three slaves
each for the repose of his soul. This last clause shows again
the mistake of saying that the monks had not the right of
manumission. The canon of the Council of Epone (517) which
forbids abbots to enfranchise their serfs was enacted in order
that the monks might not be left to work without assistance and
has been taken too literally. It is inspired not only by
agricultural prudence, but also by the consideration that the
serfs belong to the community of monks, and not to the abbot
individually. Moreover, the rule of St. Ferreol (sixth century)
permits the abbot to free serfs with the consent of the monks,
or without their consent, if, in the latter case, he replaces at
his own expense those he has enfranchised. The statement that
ecclesiastical freedmen were not as free as the freedmen of lay
proprietors will not bear examination in the light of facts,
which shows the situation of the two classes to have been
identical, except that the freedman of the Church earned a
higher wergheld than a lay freedman, and therefore his life was
better protected. The "Polyptych of Irminon", a detailed
description of the abbey lands of Saint-Germain-des-Pres shows
that in the ninth century the serfs of that domain were not
numerous and led in every way the life of free peasants.
III. THE CHURCH AND MODERN SLAVERY
In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer
existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom,
an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his
personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated
and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon
disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the
Protestant Reformation prevailed. But while serfdom was becoming
extinct, the course of events was bringing to pass a temporary
revival of slavery. As a consequence of the wars against the
Mussulmans and the commerce maintained with the East, the
European countries bordering on the Mediterranean, particularly
Spain and Italy, once more had slaves -- Turkish prisoners and
also, unfortunately, captives imported by conscienceless
traders. Though these slaves were generally well-treated, and
set at liberty if they asked for baptism, this revival of
slavery, lasting until the seventeenth century, is a blot on
Christian civilization. But the number of these slaves was
always very small in comparison with that of the Christian
captives reduced to slavery in Mussulman countries, particularly
in the Barbary states from Tripoli to the Atlantic coast of
Morocco. These captives were cruelly treated and were in
constant danger of losing their faith. Many actually did deny
their faith, or, at least, were driven by despair to abandon all
religion and all morality. Religious orders were founded to
succour and redeem them.
The Trinitarians, founded in 1198 by St. John of Matha and St.
Felix of Valois, established hospitals for slaves at Algiers and
Tunis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and from its
foundation until the year 1787 it redeemed 900,000 slaves. The
Order of Our Lady of Ransom (Mercedarians), founded in the
thirteenth century by St. Peter Nolasco, and established more
especially in France and Spain, redeemed 490,736 slaves between
the years 1218 and 1632. To the three regular vows its founder
had added a fourth, "To become a hostage in the hands of the
infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ's
faithful." Many Mercedarians kept this vow even to martyrdom.
Another order undertook not only to redeem captives, but also to
give them spiritual and material assistance. St. Vincent of Paul
had been a slave at Algiers in 1605, and had witnessed the
sufferings and perils of Christian slaves. At the request of
Louis XIV, he sent them, in 1642, priests of the congregation
which he had founded. Many of these priests, indeed, were
invested with consular functions at Tunis and at Algiers. From
1642 to 1660 they redeemed about 1200 slaves at an expense of
about 1,200,000 livres. But their greatest achievements were in
teaching the Catechism and converting thousands, and in
preparing many of the captives to suffer the most cruel
martyrdom rather than deny the Faith. As a Protestant historian
has recently said, none of the expeditions sent against the
Barbary States by the Powers of Europe, or even America,
equalled "the moral effect produced by the ministry of
consolation, and abnegation, going even to the sacrifice of
liberty and life, which was exercised by the humble sons of St.
John of Matha, St. Peter Nolasco, and St. Vincent Of Paul"
(Bonet-Maury, "France, christianisme et civilisation", 1907, p.
142).
A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of
the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of
it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be
sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the
aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the
enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves.
England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this
nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its
transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the
suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the
temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn
slavery" (Ernest Havet, "Le christianisme et ses origines", I,
p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be
"a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade
the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in
1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the
Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade
and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of
Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most
illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme
villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of
the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the
Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country
the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops
responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous
slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first
ages of the Church.
In our own times the slave trade still continued to devastate
Africa, no longer for the profit of Christian states, from which
all slavery had disappeared, but for the Mussulman countries.
But as European penetrations progresses in Africa, the
missionaries, who are always its precursors -- Fathers of the
Holy Ghost, Oblates, White Fathers, Franciscans, Jesuits,
Priests of the Mission of Lyons -- labour in the Sudan, Guinea,
on the Gabun, in the region of the Great Lakes, redeeming slaves
and establishing "liberty villages." At the head of this
movement appear two men: Cardinal Lavigerie, who in 1888 founded
the Societe Antiesclavagiste and in 1889 promoted the Brussels
conference; Leo XIII, who encouraged Lavigerie in all his
projects, and, in 1890, by an Encyclical once more condemning
the slave-traders and "the accursed pest of servitude", ordered
an annual collection to be made in all Catholic churches for the
benefit of the anti-slavery work. Some modern writers, mostly of
the Socialist School -- Karl Marx, Engel, Ciccotti, and, in a
measure, Seligman -- attribute the now almost complete
disappearance of slavery to the evolution of interests and to
economic causes only. The foregoing exposition of the subject is
an answer to their materialistic conception of history, as
showing that, if not the only, at least the principal, cause of
that disappearance is Christianity acting through the authority
of its teaching and the influence of its charity.
PAUL ALLARD
Ethical Aspect of Slavery
Ethical Aspect of Slavery
In Greek and Roman civilization slavery on an extensive scale
formed an essential element of the social structure; and
consequently the ethical speculators, no less than the practical
statesmen, regarded it as a just and indispensable institution.
The Greek, however, assumed that the slave population should be
recruited normally only from the barbarian or lower races.
The Roman laws, in the heyday of the empire, treated the slave
as a mere chattel. The master possessed over him the power of
life and death; the slave could not contract a legal marriage,
or any other kind of contract; in fact he possessed no civil
rights; in the eyes of the law he was not a "person".
Nevertheless the settlement of natural justice asserted itself
sufficiently to condemn, or at least to disapprove, the conduct
of masters who treated their slaves with signal inhumanity.
Christianity found slavery in possession throughout the Roman
world; and when Christianity obtained power it could not and did
not attempt summarily to abolish the institution. From the
beginning, however, as is shown elsewhere in this article, the
Church exerted a steady powerful pressure for the immediate
amelioration of the condition of the individual slave, and for
the ultimate abolition of a system which, even in its mildest
form, could with difficulty be reconciled with the spirit of the
Gospel and the doctrine that all men are brothers in that Divine
sonship which knows no distinction of bond and free. From the
beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in
se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice.
The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions,
was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to
prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian
teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of
St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself
incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves
to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition
patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it
became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the
schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification
till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as
representative de Lugo's statement of the chief argument offered
in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is
not in itself contrary to the natural law.
Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life,
to devote his labour and services to a master. Now as anybody may
justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to
give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in
justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind
himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire
lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery? (De Justitia
et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.)
It must be observed that the defence of what may be termed
theoretical slavery was by no means intended to be a
justification of slavery as it existed historically, with all
its attendant, and almost inevitably attendant, abuses,
disregarding the natural rights of the slave and entailing
pernicious consequences on the character of the slave-holding
class, as well as on society in general. Concurrently with the
affirmation that slavery is not against the natural law, the
moralists specify what are the natural inviolable rights of the
slave, and the corresponding duties of the owner. The gist of
this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802):
Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same
power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred
who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and
believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he
did not viol;ate any right of the slave. For slavery does not
abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is
understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the
extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services
which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the
condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat
him humanely (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii).
The master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his
slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labour, deprived him of
adequate food and clothing, or if he separated husband from
wife, or the mother from her young children. It may be said that
the approved ethical view of slavery was that while, religiously
speaking, it could not be condemned as against the natural law,
and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with
disfavour as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its
consequences, a positive evil.
The later moralists, that is to say, broadly speaking, those who
have written since the end of the eighteenth century, though in
fundamental agreement with their predecessors, have somewhat
shifted the perspective. In possession of the bad historical
record of slavery and familiar with a Christian structure of
society from which slavery had been eliminated, these later
moralists emphasize more than did the older ones the reasons for
condemning slavery; and they lay less stress on those in its
favour. While they admit that it is not, theoretically speaking
at least, contrary to the natural law, they hold that it is
hardly compatible with the dignity of personality, and is to be
condemned as immoral on account of the evil consequences it
almost inevitably leads to. It is but little in keeping with
human dignity that one man should so far be deprived of his
liberty as to be perpetually subject to the will of a master in
everything that concerns his external life; that he should be
compelled to spend his entire labour for the benefit of another
and receive in return only a bare subsistence. This condition of
degradation is aggravated by the fact that the slave is,
generally, deprived of all means of intellectual development for
himself or for his children. This life almost inevitably leads
to the destruction of a proper sense of self-respect, blunts the
intellectual faculties, weakens the sense of responsibility, and
results in a degraded moral standard. On the other hand, the
exercise of the slave-master's power, too seldom sufficiently
restrained by a sense of justice or Christian feeling, tends to
develop arrogance, pride, and a tyrannical disposition, which in
the long run comes to treat the slave as a being with no rights
at all. Besides, as history amply proves, the presence of a
slave population breeds a vast amount of sexual immorality among
the slave-owning class, and, to borrow a phrase of Lecky, tends
to cast a stigma on all labour and to degrade and impoverish the
free poor.
Even granting that slavery, when attended with a due regard for
the rights of the slave, is not in itself intrinsically wrong,
there still remains the important question of the titles by
which a master can justly own a slave. The least debatable one,
voluntary acceptance of slavery, we have already noticed.
Another one that was looked upon as legitimate was purchase.
Although it is against natural justice to treat a person as a
mere commodity or thing of commerce, nevertheless the labour of
a man for his whole lifetime is something that may be lawfully
bought and sold. Owing to the exalted notion that prevailed in
earlier times about the patria potestas, a father was granted
the right to sell his son into slavery, if he could not
otherwise relieve his own dire distress. But the theologians
held that if he should afterwards be able to do so, the father
was bound to redeem the slave, and the master the was bound to
set him free if anybody offered to repay him the price he had
paid. To sell old or worn-out slaves to anybody who was likely
to prove a cruel master, to separate by sale husband and wife,
or a mother and her little children, was looked upon as wrong
and forbidden. Another title was war. If a man forfeited his
life so that he could be justly put to death, this punishment
might be committed into the mitigated penalty of slavery, or
penal servitude for life. On the same principle that slavery is
a lesser evil than death, captives taken in war, who, according
to the ethical ideas of the jus gentium, might lawfully be put
to death by the victors, were instead reduced to slavery.
Whatever justification this practice may have had in the jus
gentium of former ages, none could be found for it now.
When slavery prevailed as part of the social organization and
the slaves were ranked as property, it seemed not unreasonable
that the old juridical maxim, Partus sequitur ventrem, should be
accepted as peremptorily settling the status of children born in
slavery. But it would be difficult to find any justification for
this title in the natural law, except on the theory that the
institution of slavery was, in certain conditions, necessary to
the permanence of the social organization. An insufficient
reason frequently offered in defence of it was that the master
acquired a right to the children as compensation for the expense
he incurred in their support, which could not be provided by the
mother who possessed nothing of her own. Nor is there much
cogency in the other plea, i.e. that a person born in slavery
was presumed to consent tacitly to remaining in that condition,
as there was no way open to him to enter any other. It is
unnecessary to observe that the practice of capturing savages or
barbarians for the purpose of making slaves of them has always
been condemned as a heinous offence against justice, and no just
title could be created by this procedure. Was it lawful for
owners to retain in slavery the descendants of those who had
been made slaves in this unjust way? The last conspicuous
Catholic moralist who posed this question when it was not merely
a theoretical one, Kenrick, resolves it in the affirmative on
the ground that lapse of time remedies the original defect in
titles when the stability of society and the avoidance of grave
disturbances demand it.
Notes
See ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica I-II:94:3, ad 2um; II-II:57:3,
ad 2um; II-II:57:4, ad 2um.
JAMES J. FOX
Slaves (Dene Indians)
Slaves
(Dene "Men").
A tribe of the great Dene family of American Indians, so called
apparently from the fact that the Crees drove it back to its
original northern haunts. Its present habitat is the forests
that lie to the west of Great Slave Lake, from Hay River
inclusive. The Slaves are divided into five main bands: those of
Hay River, Trout Lake, Horn Mountain, the forks of the
Mackenzie, and Fort Norman. Their total population is about
1100. They are for the most part a people of unprepossessing
appearance. Their morals were not formerly of the best, but
since the advent of Catholic missionaries they have considerably
improved. Many of them have discarded the tepees of old for more
or less comfortable log houses. Yet the religious instinct is
not so strongly developed in them as with most of their
congeners in the North. They were not so eager to receive the
Catholic missionaries, and when the first Protestant ministers
arrived among them, the liberalities of the strangers had more
effect on them than the other northern Denes. To-day perhaps
one-twelfth of the whole tribe has embraced Protestantism, the
remainder being Catholics. The spiritual wants of the latter are
attended to from the missions of St. Joseph on the Great Slave
Lake, Ste. Anne, Hay River, and Providence, Mackenzie.
A.G. MORICE
Slavonic Language and Liturgy
Slavonic Language and Liturgy
Although the Latin holds the chief place among the liturgical
languages in which the Mass is celebrated and the praise of God
recited in the Divine Offices, yet the Slavonic language comes
next to it among the languages widely used throughout the world
in the liturgy of the Church. Unlike the Greek or the Latin
languages, each of which may be said to be representative of a
single rite, it is dedicated to both the Greek and the Roman
rites. Its use, however, is far better known throughout Europe
as an expression of the Greek Rite; for it is used amongst the
various Slavic nationalities of the Byzantine Rite, whether
Catholic or Orthodox, and in that form is spread among
115,000,000 people; but it is also used in the Roman Rite along
the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia and in the
lower part of Croatia among the 100,000 Catholics there. Whilst
the Greek language is the norm and the original of the Byzantine
or Greek Rite, its actual use as a church language is limited to
a comparatively small number, reckoning by population. The
liturgy and offices of the Byzantine Church were translated from
the Greek into what is now Old Slavonic (or Church Slavonic) by
Sts. Cyril and Methodius about the year 866 and the period
immediately following. St. Cyril is credited with having
invented or adapted a special alphabet which now bears his name
(Cyrillic) in order to express the sounds of the Slavonic
language, as spoken by the Bulgars and Moravians of his day.
Later on St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into Slavonic
and his disciples afterwards added other works of the Greek
saints and the canon law. These two brother saints always
celebrated Mass and administered the sacraments in the Slavonic
language. News of their successful missionary work among the
pagan Slavs was carried to Rome along with complaints against
them for celebrating the rites of the Church in the heathen
vernacular. In 868 Saints Cyril and Methodius were summoned to
Rome by Nicholas I, but arriving there after his death they were
heartily received by his successor Adrian II, who approved of
their Slavonic version of the liturgy. St. Cyril died in Rome in
869 and is buried in the Church of San Clemente. St. Methodius
was afterwards consecrated Archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia
and returned thither to his missionary work. Later on he was
again accused of using the heathen Slavonic language in the
celebration of the Mass and in the sacraments. It was a popular
idea then, that as there had been three languages, Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin, inscribed over our Lord on the cross, it would
be sacrilegious to use any other language in the service of the
Church. St.Methodius appealed to the pope and in 879 he was
again summoned to Rome, before John VIII, who after hearing the
matter sanctioned the use of the Slavonic language in the Mass
and the offices of the Church, saying among other things:
We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which
praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and
deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in
anywise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that
same Slavonic language (Nec sanae fidei vel doctrinae aliquid obstat
missam in eadem slavonica lingua canere), or to chant the holy
gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly
translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine
office: for He who created the three principal languages, Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory
(Boczek, Codex, tom. I, pp. 43-44).
From that time onward the Slavonic tongue was firmly fixed as a
liturgical language of the Church, and was used wherever the
Slavic tribes were converted to Christianity under the influence
of monks and missionaries of the Greek Rite. The Cyrillic
letters used in writing it are adaptations of the uncial Greek
alphabet, with the addition of a number of new letters to
express sounds not found in the greek language. All Church books
in Russia, Servia, Bulgaria, or Austro-Hungary (whether used in
the Greek Catholic or the Greek Orthodox Churches) are printed
in the old Cyrillic alphabet and in the ancient Slavonic tongue.
But even before St. Cyril invented his alphabet for the Slavonic
language there existed certain runes or native characters in
which the southern dialect of the language was committed to
writing. There is a tradition, alluded to by Innocent XI, that
they were invented by St. Jerome as early as the fourth century;
Jagic however thinks that they were really the original letters
invented by St. Cyril and afterwards abandoned in favour of an
imitation of Greek characters by his disciples and successors.
This older alphabet, which still survives, is called the
Glagolitic (from glagolati, to speak, because the rude tribesmen
imagined that the letters spoke to the reader and told him what
to say), and was used by the southern Slavic tribes and now
exists along the Adriatic highlands. (See GLAGOLITIC.) The
Slavonic which is written in the Glagolitic characters is also
the ancient language, but it differs considerably from the
Slavonic written in the Cyrillic letters. In fact it may be
roughly compared to the difference between the Gaelic of Ireland
and the Gaelic of Scotland. The Roman Mass was translated into
this Slavonic shortly after the Greek liturgy had been
translated by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, so that in the course of
time among the Slavic peoples the southern Slavonic written in
Glagolitic letters became the language of the Roman Rite, while
the northern Slavonic written in Cyrillic letters was the
language of the Greek Rite. The prevailing use of the Latin
language and the adoption of the Roman alphabet by many Slavic
nationalities caused the use of the Glagolitic to diminish and
Latin to gradually take its place. The northern Slavic peoples,
like the Bohemians, Poles and Slovaks, who were converted by
Latin missionaries, used the Latin in their rite from the very
first. At present the Glagolitic is only used in Dalmatia and
Croatia. Urban VIII in 1631 definitively settled the use of the
Glagolitic-Slavonic missal and office-books in the Roman Rite,
and laid down rules where the clergy of each language came in
contact with each other in regard to church services. Leo XIII
published two editions of the Glagoltic Missal, from one of
which the illustration on page 45 is taken.
The liturgy used in the Slavonic language, whether of Greek or
Roman Rite, offers no peculiarities differing from the original
Greek or Latin sources. The Ruthenians have introduced an
occasional minor modification (see RUTHENIAN RITE), but the
Orthodox Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians substantially follow
he Byzantine liturgy and offices in the Slavonic version. The
Glagolitic Missal, Breviary, and ritual follow closely the Roman
liturgical books, and the latest editions contain the new
offices authorized by the Roman congregations. The casual
observer could not distinguish the Slavonic priest from the
Latin priest when celebrating Mass or other services, except by
hearing the language as pronounced aloud.
ANDREW SHIPMAN
The Slavs
The Slavs
I. NAME
A. Slavs
At present the customary name for all the Slavonic races is
Slav. This name did not appear in history until a late period,
but it has superseded all others. The general opinion is that it
appeared for the first time in written documents in the sixth
century of the Christian era. However, before this the
Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy (about A.D. 100-178) mentioned in
his work, " Geographike hyphegesis", a tribe called Stavani
(Stavanoi) which was said to live in European Sarmatia between
the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and the Sudeni and the
Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned another tribe,
Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the other
side of the Alani. According to Safarik these two statements
refer to the same Slavonic people. Ptolemy got his information
from two sources; the orthography of the copies he had was poor
and consequently he believed there were two tribes to which it
was necessary to assign separate localities. In reality the
second name refers very probably to the ancestors of the present
Slavs, as does the first name also though with less certainty.
The Slavonic combination of consonants sl was changed in Greek
orthography into stl, sthl, or skl. This theory was accepted by
many scholars before Safarik, as Lomonosov, Schloezer,
Tatistcheff, J. Thunmann, who in 1774 published a dissertation
on the subject. It was first advanced probably in 1679 by
Hartknoch who was supported in modern times by many scholars.
Apart from the mention by Ptolemy, the expression Slavs is not
found until the sixth century. The opinion once held by some
German and many Slavonic scholars that the names Suevi and Slav
were the same and that these two peoples were identical,
although the Suevi were a branch of the Germans and the
ancestors of the present Swabians, must be absolutely rejected.
Scattered names found in old inscriptions and old charters that
are similar in sound to the word Slav must also be excluded in
this investigation.
After the reference by Ptolemy the Slavs are first spoken of by
Pseudo-Caesarios of Nazianzum, whose work appeared at the
beginning of the sixth century; in the middle of the sixth
century Jordanis and Procopius gave fuller accounts of them.
Even in the earliest sources the name appears in two forms. The
old Slavonic authorities give: Slovene (plural from the singular
Slovenin), the country is called Slovensko, the language
slovenesk jazyk, the people slovensk narod. The Greeks wrote
Soubenoi, but the writers of the sixth century used the terms:
Sklabenoi, Sklauenoi, Sklabinoi, Sklauinoi. The Romans used the
terms: Sclaueni, Sclauini, Sclauenia, Sclauinia. Later authors
employ the expressions Sthlabenoi, Sthlabinoi, while the Romans
wrote: Sthlaueni, Sthlauini. In the "Life of St. Clement" the
expression Sthlabenoi occurs; later writers use such terms as
Esklabinoi, Asklabinoi, Sklabinioi, Sklauenioi. The adjectives
are sclaviniscus, sclavaniscus, sclavinicus, sclauanicus. At the
same time shorter forms are also to be found, as: sklaboi,
sthlaboi, sclavi, schlavi, sclavania, later also slavi. In
addition appear as scattered forms: Sclauani, Sclauones
(Sklabonoi, Esthlabesianoi, Ethlabogeneis). The Armenian Moises
of Choren was acquainted with the term Sklavajin: the chronicler
Michael the Syrian used the expression Sglau or Sglou; the
Arabians adopted the expression Sclav, but because it could not
be brought into harmony with their phonetical laws they changed
it into Saklab, Sakalib, and later also to Slavije, Slavijun.
The anonymous Persian geography of the tenth century used the
term Seljabe.
Various explanations of the name have been suggested, the theory
depending upon whether the longer or shorter form has been taken
as the basis and upon acceptance of the vowel o or a as the
original root vowel. From the thirteenth century until Safarik
the shorter form Slav was always regarded as the original
expression, and the name of the Slavs was traced from the word
Slava (honour, fame), consequently it signified the same as
gloriosi (ainetoi). However, as early as the fourteenth century
and later the name Slav was at times referred to the longer form
Slovenin with o as the root vowel, and this longer form was
traced to the word Slovo (word, speech), Slavs signifying,
consequently, "the talking ones," verbosi, veraces, homoglottoi,
consequently it has been the accepted theory up to the present
time. Other elucidations of the name Slav, as clovek (man),
skala (rock), selo (colony), slati (to send), solovej
(nightingale), scarcely merit mention. There is much more reason
in another objection that Slavonic philologists have made to the
derivation of the word Slav from slovo (word). The ending en or
an of the form Slovenin indicates derivation from a
topographical designation. Dobrowsky perceived this difficulty
and therefore invented the topographical name Slovy, which was
to be derived from slovo. With some reservation Safarik also
gave a geographical interpretation. He did not, however, accept
the purely imaginary locality Slovy but connected the word
Slovenin with the Lithuanian Salava, Lettish Sala, from which is
derived the Polish zulawa, signifying island, a dry spot in a
swampy region. According to this interpretation the word Slavs
would mean the inhabitants of an island, or inhabitants of a
marshy region. The German scholar Grimm maintained the identity
of the Slavs with Suevi and derived the name from sloba, svoba
(freedom). The most probable explanation is that deriving the
name from slovo (word); this is supported by the Slavonic name
for the Germans Nemci (the dumb). The Slavs called themselves
Slovani, that is, "the speaking ones", those who know words,
while they called their neighbours the Germans, "the dumb", that
is, those who do not know words.
During the long period of war between the Germans and Slavs,
which lasted until the tenth century, the Slavonic territories
in the north and southeast furnished the Germans large numbers
of slaves. The Venetian and other Italian cities on the coast
took numerous Slavonic captives from the opposite side of the
Adriatic whom they resold to other places. The Slavs frequently
shared in the seizure and export of their countrymen as slaves.
The Naretani, a piratical Slavonic tribe living in the present
district of Southern Dalmatia, were especially notorious for
their slave-trade. Russian princes exported large numbers of
slaves from their country. The result is that the name Slav has
given the word slave to the peoples of Western Europe.
The question still remains to be answered whether the expression
Slavs indicated originally all Slavonic tribes or only one or a
few of them. The reference to them in Ptolemy shows that the
word then meant only a single tribe. Ptolemy called the Slavs as
a whole the Venedai and says they are "the greatest nation"
(megiston ethnos). The Byzantines of the sixth century thought
only of the southern Slavs and incidentally also of the
Russians, who lived on the boundaries of the Eastern Empire.
With them the expression Slavs meant only the southern Slavs;
they called the Russians Antae, and distinguished sharply
between the two groups of tribes. In one place (Get., 34, 35)
Jordanis divides all Slavs into three groups: Veneti, Slavs, and
Antae; this would correspond to the present division of western,
southern, and eastern Slavs. However, this mention appears to be
an arbitrary combination. In another passage he designated the
eastern Slavs by the name Veneti. Probably he had found the
expression Veneti in old writers and had learned personally the
names Slavs and Antae; in this way arose his triple division.
All the seventh-century authorities call all Slavonic tribes,
both southern Slavs and western Slavs, that belonged to the
kingdom of Prince Samo, simply Slavs; Samo is called the "ruler
of the Slavs", but his peoples are called "the Slavs named
Vindi" (Sclavi cognomento Winadi). In the eighth and ninth
centuries the Czechs and Slavs of the Elbe were generally called
Slavs, but also at times Wens, by the German and Roman
chroniclers. In the same way all authorities of the era of the
Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, give the name Slav
without any distinction both to the southern Slavs, to which
branch both missionaries belonged, and to the western Slavs,
among whom they laboured. As regards the eastern Slavs or
Russians, leaving out the mention of Ptolemy already referred
to, Jordanis says that at the beginning of the era of the
migrations the Goths had carried on war with the "nation of
Slavs"; this nation must have lived in what is now Southern
Russia. The earliest Russian chronicle, erroneously ascribed to
the monk Nestor, always calls the Slavs as a whole "Slavs". When
it begins to narrate the history of Russia it speaks indeed of
the Russians to whom it never applies the designation Slav, but
it also often tells of the Slavs of Northern Russia, the Slavs
of Novgorod. Those tribes that were already thoroughly
incorporated in the Russian kingdom are simply called Russian
tribes, while the Slavs in Northern Russia, who maintained a
certain independence, were designated by the general expression
Slavs. Consequently, the opinion advocated by Miklosic, namely,
that the name Slav was originally applied only to one Slavonic
tribe, is unfounded, though it has been supported by other
scholars like Krek, Potkanski, Czermak, and Pasternek.
From at least the sixth century the expression Slav was,
therefore, the general designation of all Slavonic tribes.
Wherever a Slavonic tribe rose to greater political importance
and founded an independent kingdom of its own, the name of the
tribe came to the front and pushed aside the general designation
Slav. Where, however, the Slavs attained no political power but
fell under the sway of foreign rulers they remained known by the
general description Slav. Among the successful tribes who
brought an entire district under their sway and gave it their
name were the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Croats, and the Turanian
tribe of the Bulgars. The old general name has been retained to
the present time by the Slovenes of Southern Austria on the
Adriatic coast, the Slovaks of Northern Hungary, the province
Slavonia between Croatia and Hungary and its inhabitants the
Slavonians, and the Slovinci of Prussia on the North Sea. Up to
recent times the name was customary among the inhabitants of the
most celebrated Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). Until late in
the Middle Ages it was retained by the Slavs of Novgorod in
Northern Russia and by the Slavs in Macedonia and Albania. These
peoples, however, have also retained their specific national and
tribal names.
B. Wends
A much older designation in the historical authorities than Slav
is the name Wend. It is under this designation that the Slavs
first appear in history. The first certain references to the
present Slavs date from the first and second centuries. They
were made by the Roman writers Pliny and Tacitus and the
Alexandrian already mentioned Ptolemy. Pliny (d. A.D. 79) says
(Nat. hist., IV, 97) that among the peoples living on the other
side of the Vistula besides the Sarmatians and others are also
the Wends (Venedi). Tacitus (G., 46) says the same. He describes
the Wends somewhat more in detail but cannot make up his mind
whether he ought to include them among the Germans or the
Sarmatians; still they seem to him to be more closely connected
with the first named than with the latter. Ptolemy (d.about 178)
in his Geographike (III, 57) calls the Venedi the greatest
nation living on the Wendic Gulf. However, he says later (III,
5, 8) that they live on the Vistula; he also speaks of the
Venedic mountains (III, 5, 6). In the centuries immediately
succeeding the Wends are mentioned very rarely. The migrations
that had now begun had brought other peoples into the foreground
until the Venedi again appear in the sixth century under the
name of Slavs. The name Wend, however, was never completely
forgotten. The German chroniclers used both names constantly
without distinction, the former almost oftener than the latter.
Even now the Sorbs of Lusatic are called by the Germans Wends,
while the Slovenes are frequently called Winds and their
language is called Windish.
Those who maintain the theory that the original home of the
Slavs was in the countries along the Danube have tried to refute
the opinion that these references relate to the ancestors of the
present Slavs, but their arguments are inconclusive. Besides
these definite notices there are several others that are neither
clear nor certain. The Wends or Slavs have had connected with
them as old tribal confederates of the present Slavs the Budinoi
mentioned by Herodotus, and also the Island of Banoma mentioned
by Pliny (IV, 94), further the venetae, the original inhabitants
of the present Province of Venice, as well as the Homeric
Venetoi, Caesar's Veneti in Gaul and Anglia, etc. In all
probability, the Adriatic Veneti were an Illyrian tribe related
to the present Albanians, but nothing is known of them. With
more reason can the old story that the Greeks obtained amber
from the River Eridanos in the country of the Enetoi be applied
to the Wends or Slavs; from which it may be concluded that the
Slavs were already living on the shores of the Baltic in the
fourth century before Christ.
Most probably the name Wend was of foreign origin and the race
was known by this name only among the foreign tribes, while they
called themselves Slavs. It is possible that the Slavs were
originally named Wends by the early Gauls, because the root
Wend, or Wind, is found especially in the districts once
occupied by the Gauls. The word was apparently a designation
that was first applied to various Gallic or Celtic tribes, and
then given by the Celts to the Wendic tribes living north of
them. The explanation of the meaning of the word is also to be
sought from this point of view. The endeavour was made at one
time to derive the word from the Teutonic dialects, as Danish
wand, Old Norwegian vatn, Lation unda, meaning water. Thus Wends
would signify watermen, people living about the water, people
living by the sea, as proposed by Jordan, Adelung, and others. A
derivation from the German wended (to turn) has also been
suggested, thus the Wends are the people wandering about; or
from the Gothic vinja, related to the German weiden, pasture,
hence Wends, those who pasture, the shepherds; finally the word
has been traced to the old root ven, belonging together. Wends
would, therefore mean the allied. Pogodin traced the name from
the Celtic, taking it from the early Celtic root vindos, white,
by which expression the dark Celts designated the light Slavs.
Naturally an explanation of the term was also sought in the Old
Slavonic language; thus, Kollar derived it from the Old Slavonic
word Un, Sassinek from Slo-van, Perwolf from the Old Slavonic
root ved, still retained in the Old Slavonic comparative vestij
meaning large and brought it into connection with the Russian
Anti and Vjatici; Hilferding even derived it from the old East
Indian designation of the Aryans Vanila, and Safarik connected
the word with the East Indians, a confusion that is also to be
found in the early writers.
II. ORIGINAL HOME AND MIGRATIONS
There are two theories in regard to the original home of the
Slavs, and these theories are in sharp opposition to each other.
One considers the region of the Danube as the original home of
the Slavs, whence they spread northeast over the Carpathians as
far as the Volga River, Lake Ilmen, and the Caspian Sea. The
other theory regards the districts between the Vistula and the
Dnieper as their original home, whence they spread southwest
over the Carpathians to the Balkans and into the Alps, and
towards the west across the Oder and the Elbe.
The ancient Kiev chronicle, erroneously ascribed to the monk
Nestor, is the earliest authority quoted for the theory that the
original home of the Slavs is to be sought in the region of the
Danube. Here in detail is related for the first time how the
Slavs spread from the lower Danube to all the countries occupied
later by them. The Noricans and Illyrians are declared to be
Slavs, and Andronikos and the Apostle Paul are called Apostles
to the Slavs because they laboured in Illyria and Pannocia. This
view was maintained by the later chroniclers and historical
writers of all Slavonic peoples, as the Pole Kadlubek, "Chronika
pol." (1206), Boguchwal (d. 1253), Dlugos, Matej Miechowa,
Decius, and others. Among the Czechs, this theory was supported
by Kozmaz (d. 1125), Dalimir (d.1324), Johann Marignola
(1355-1362), Pribik Pulkava (1374), and V. Hajek (1541). The
Russians also developed their theories from the statements of
their first chronicler, while the Greek Laonikos Harkondilos of
the fifteenth century did not commit himself to this view. The
southern Slavs have held this theory from the earliest period up
to the present time with the evident intention to base on it
their claims to the Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. At an early
period, in the letter of Pope John X (914-29) to the Croatian
Ban Tomislav and the Sachlumian ruler Mihael, there is a
reference to the prevalent tradition that St. Jerome invented
the Slavonic alphabet. This tradition maintained itself through
the succeeding centuries, finding supporters even outside these
countries, and was current at Rome itself. Consequently if we
were to follow strictly the written historical authorities, of
which a number are very trustworthy, we would be obliged to
support the theory that the original home of the Slavs is in the
countries along the Danube and on the Adriatic coast.
However, the contrary is the case; the original home of the
Slavs and the region from which their migrations began is to be
sought in the basin of the Dnieper and in the region extending
to the Carpathians and the Vistula. It is easy to explain the
origin of the above-mentioned widely believed opinion. At the
beginning of the Old Slavonic literature in the ancient Kingdom
of the Bulgars the Byzantine chronicles of Hamartolos and
Malala, which were besides of very little value, were translated
into Slavonic. These chronicles give an account of the
migrations of the nations from the region of Senaar after the
Deluge. According to this account the Europeans are the
descendants of Japhet, who journeyed from Senaar by way of Asia
Minor to the Balkans; there they divided into various nations
and spread in various directions. Consequently the Slavonic
reader of these chronicles would believe that the starting point
of the migrations of the Slavs also was the Balkans and the
region of the lower Danube. Because the historical authorities
place the ancient tribe of the Illyrians in this region, it was
necessary to make this tribe also Slavonic. In the later battles
of the Slavs for the maintenance of their language in the
Liturgy, this opinion was very convenient, as appeal could be
made for the Slavonic claims to the authority of St. Jerome and
even of St. Paul. Opinions which are widely current yet do not
correspond to facts are often adopted in historical writings.
Among the Slavonic historians philogists supporting this theory
are: Kopitar, August Schloetzer, Safarik, N. Arcybasef, Fr.
Racki, Bielowski, M.Drinov, L.Stur, Ivan P. Filevic, Dm.
Samaokvasov, M.Leopardov, N.Zakoski, and J.Pic. We have here an
interesting proof that a tradition deeply rooted and extending
over many centuries and found in nearly all of the early native
historical authorities does not agree with historical fact.
At present most scholars are of the opinion that the original
home of the Slavs in Southeastern Europe must be sought between
the Vistula and the Dneiper. The reasons for this belief are:
the testimony of the oldest accounts of the Slavs, given as
already mentioned by Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy; further the
close relationship between the Slavs and the Lettish tribes,
pointing to the fact that originally the Slavs lived close to
the Letts and Lithuanians; then various indications proving that
the Slavs must have been originally neighbours of the Finnish
and Turanian tribes. Historical investigation has shown that the
Thraco- Illyrian tribes are not the forefathers of the Slavs,
but form an independent family group between the Greeks and the
Latins. There is no certain proof in the Balkan territory and in
the region along the Danube of the presence of the Slavs there
before the first century. On the other hand in the region of the
Dneiper excavations and archeological finds show traces only of
the Slavs. In addition the direction of the general march in the
migrations of the nations was always from the northeast towards
the south- west, but never in the opposite direction. Those who
maintain the theory that the Slavs came from the region of the
Danube sought to strengthen their views by the names of various
places to be found in these districts that indicate Slavonic
origin. The etymology of these names, however, is not entirely
certain; there are other names that appear only int he later
authorities of the first centuries after Christ. Some again
prove nothing, as they could have arisen without the occupation
of these districts by the Slavs.
It can therefore be said almost positively that the original
home of the Slavs was in the territory along the Dneiper, and
farther to the northwest as far as the Vistual. From these
regions, they spread to the west and southwest. This much only
can be conceded to the other view, that the migration probably
took place much earlier than is generally supposed. Probably, it
took place slowly and be degrees. One tribe would push another
ahead of it like a wave, and they all spread out in the wide
territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and Aegean Seas.
Here and there some disorder was caused in the Slavonic
migration by the incursions of Asiatic peoples, as Scythians,
Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars, as well as by the
German migration from northwest to southeast. These incursions
separated kindred tribes from one another or introduced foreign
elements among them. Taken altogether, however, the natural
arrangement was not much disturbed, kindred tribes journeyed
together and settled near one another in the new land, so that
even to-day the entire Slavonic race presents a regular
succession of tribes. As early as the first century of our era
individual Slavonic tribes must have crossed the boundaries of
the original home and have settled at times among strangers at a
considerable distance from the native country. At times again
these outposts would be driven back and obliged to retire to the
main body, but at the first opportunity they would advance
again. Central Europe must have been largely populated by Slavs,
as early as the era of the Hunnish ruler Attila, or of the
migrations of the German tribes of the Goths, Lombards, Gepidae,
Heruli, Rugians etc. These last-mentioned peoples and tribes
formed warlike castes and military organizations which became
conspicuous in history by their battles and therefore have left
more traces in the old historical writings. The Slavs, however,
formed the lower strata of the population of Central Europe; all
the migrations of the other tribes passed over them, and when
the times grew more peaceful the Slavs reappeared on the
surface. It is only in this way that the appearance of the Slavs
in great numbers in these countries directly after the close of
the migrations can be explained without there being any record
in history of when and whence they came without their original
home being depopulated.
III. CLASSIFICATION OF THE SLAVONIC PEOPLES
The question as to the classification and number of the Slavonic
peoples is a complicated one. Scientific investigation does not
support the common belief, and in addition scholars do not agree
in their opinions on this question. In 1822 the father of
Slavonic philology, Joseph Dobrovsky, recognized nine Slavonic
peoples and languages: Russian, Illyrian or Serb, Croat,
Slovene, Korotanish, Slovak, Bohemians, Lusatian Sorb and
Polish. In his "Slavonic Ethnology" (1842) Pavel Safarik
enumerated six languages with thirteen dialects: Russian,
Bolgarish, Illyrian, Lechish, Bohemians, Lusatian. The great
Russian scholar J. Sreznejevskij held that there were eight
Slavonic languages: Great Russians, Serbo-Croat, Korotanish,
Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Slovak. In 1865 A. Schleicher
enumerated eight Slavonic languages: Polish, Lusatians,
Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Serb, Bulgarian, and
Slovene. Franc Miklosic counted nine: Slovene, Bulgarian,
Serbo-Croat, Great Russian, Little Russian, Bohemian, Polish,
Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian. In 1907 Dm. Florinskij
enumerated nine: Russian, Bulgarians, Serbo-Croat, Slovene,
Bohemian-Moravian, Slovak, Lusatian, Polish and Kasube. In 1898
V. Jagic held that there were eight: Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian,
Great Russian, Little Russian, Slovene, Serbo-Croat, Bulgarian.
Thus it is seen that the greatest representatives of Slavonic
linguistics are not in accord upon the question of the number of
Slavonic languages. The case is the same from the purely
philological point of view. Practically the matter is even more
complicated because of other factors, which often play an
important part, have to be considered, as religion, politics
etc.
At the present time some eleven to fourteen languages, not
including the extinct ones, can be enumerated which lay claim to
be reckoned as distinct tongues. The cause of the uncertainty is
that it is impossible to state definitively of several branches
of the Slavonic family whether they form an independent nation,
or only the dialect and subdivision of another Slavonic nation,
and further because often it is impossible to draw the line
between one Slavonic people and another. The Great Russians,
Poles, Bohemians and Bulgarians are universally admitted to be
distinctive Slavonic peoples with distinctive languages. The
Little Russians and the White Russians are trying to develop
into separate nationalities, indeed the former have now to be
recognized as a distinct people, at least this is true of the
Ruthenians in Austria-Hungary. The Moravians must be included in
the Bohemian nation, because they hold this themselves and no
philological, political, or ethnographical reason opposes. The
Slovaks of Moravia also consider that they are of Bohemian
nationality. About sixty years ago the Slovaks of Hungary began
to develop as a separate nation with a separate literary
language and must now be regarded as a distinct people. The
Lusatian Sorbs also are generally looked upon as a separate
people with a distinct language. A division of this little
nationality into Upper and Lower Lusatians has been made on
account of linguistic, religious, and political differences;
this distinction is also evident in the literary language,
consequently some scholars regard the Lusatians as two different
peoples. The remains of the languages of the former Slavonic
inhabitants of Pomerania, the Sloventzi, or Kasube are generally
regarded at present as dialects of Polish, though some
distinguished Polish scholars maintain the independence of the
Kasube language. The conditions in the south are even more
complicated. Without doubt the Bulgarians are a separate
nationality, but it is difficult to draw the line between the
Bulgarians and the Serbian peoples, especially in Macedonia.
Philologically the Croats and Serbs must be regarded as one
nation; politically, however, and ethnographically they are
distinct peoples. The population of Southern Dalmatia, the
Moslem population of Bosnia, and probably also the inhabitants
of some parts of Southern Hungary, and of Croatia cannot be
assigned to a definite group. Again, the nationality and extent
of the Slovenes living in the eastern Alps and on the Adriatic
coast cannot be settled without further investigation.
From a philological point of view the following fundamental
principles must be taken for guidance. The Slavonic world in its
entire extent presents philologically a homogeneous whole
without sharply defined transitions or gradations. When the
Slavs settled in the localities at present occupied by them they
were a mass of tribes of closely allied tongues that changed
slightly from tribe to tribe. Later historical development, the
appearance of Slavonic kingdoms, the growth of literary
languages, and various civilizing influences from without have
aided in bringing about the result that sharper distinctions
have been drawn in certain places, and that distinct
nationalities have developed in different localities. Where
these factors did not appear in sufficient number the boundaries
are not settled even now, or have been drawn only of late. The
Slavonic peoples can be separated into the following groups on
the basis of philological differences:
+ The eastern or Russian group; in the south this group
approaches the Bulgarian; in the northwest the White Russian
dialects show an affinity to Polish. The eastern group is
subdivided into Great Russian, that is, the prevailing Russian
nationality, then Little Russian, and White Russian.
+ The northwestern group. This is subdivided into the Lechish
languages and into Slovak, Bohemians, and Sorb tongues.
The first sub-division includes the Poles, Kasubes, and
Slovintzi, also the extinct languages of the Slavs who formerly
extended across the Oder and the Elbe throughout the present
Northern Germany. The second division includes the Bohemians,
Slovaks, and the Lusatian Sorbs.
The Slavs in the Balkans and in the southern districts of the
Austro-Hungarians Monarchy are divided philologically into
Bulgarians; Stokauans, who include all Serbs, the Slavonic
Moslems of Bosnia, and also a large part of the population of
Croatia; the Cakauans, who live partly in Dalmatia, Istria, and
on the coast of Croatia; the Kajkauans, to whom must be assigned
three Croatian countries and all Slovene districts. According to
the common opinion that is based upon a combination of
philological, political and religious reasons the Slavs are
divided into the following nations: Russian, Polish,
Bohemian-Slovak, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians.
IV. PRESENT CONDITION
A. Russians
The Russians live in Russia and the northeastern part of
Austria-Hungary. They form a compact body only in the
southwestern part of the Russian Empire, as in the north and
east they are largely mixed with Finnish and Tatar populations.
In Austria the Little Russians inhabit Eastern Galicia and the
northern part of Bukowina; in Hungary they lice in the eastern
part on the slopes of the Carpathians. Scattered colonies of
Little Russians or Ruthenians are also to be found in Slavonia
and Bosnia among the southern Slavs, in Bulgaria, and in the
Dobrudja. In Asia Western Siberia is Russian, Central Siberia
has numerous Russians colonies, while Eastern Siberia is chiefly
occupied by native tribes. There are Russians, however, living
in the region of the Amur River, and on the Pacific as well as
on the Island of Saghalien. Turkestan and the Kirghiz steppes
have native populations with Russian colonies in the cities.
There are large numbers of Russian emigrants, mostly members of
sects, in Canada and elsewhere in America. Brazil, Argentina,
and the United States have many Little Russian immigrants. There
are small Russian colonies in Asia Minor and lately the
emigration has also extended to Africa. According to the Russian
census of 1897 there were in the Russian Empire 83,933,567
Russians, that is, 67 percent of the entire population of the
empire. Allowing for natural increase, at the present (1911)
time there are about 89 millions. In 1900 there were in Austria
3,375,576 Ruthenians, in Hungary 429,447. Consequently in 1900
the total number of Russians could be reckoned at about 93
million persons. This does not include the Russian colonists in
other countries; moreover, the numbers given by the official
statistics of Austria-Hungary may be far below reality.
Classified by religion the Russian Slavs are divided as follows:
in Russian Orthodox, 95.48 percent; Old Believers 2.59 per cent;
Catholics 1.78 per cent; Protestants .05 percent; Jews .08 per
cent; Moslems .01 per cent; in Austria-Hungary Byzantine
Catholics, 90.6 percent, the Eastern Orthodox, 8 percent. In the
Russian Empire, excluding Finland and Poland, 77.01 percent are
illiterates; in Poland, 69.5 percent; Finland and the Baltic
provinces with the large German cities show a higher rate of
literacy.
The Russians are divided into Great Russians, Little Russians or
inhabitants of the Ukraine, and White Russians. In 1900 the
relative numbers of these three divisions were approximately:
Great Russians, 59,000,000; White Russians, 6,2000,000; Little
Russians, 23,700,000. In addition there are 3,8000,000 Little
Russians in Austria-Hungary, and 5000,000 in America. The
Russian official statistics are naturally entirely too
unfavourable to the White Russians and the Little Russians;
private computations of the Little Russian scholars give much
higher results. Hrusevskij found that the Little Russians taken
altogether numbered 34,000,000; Karskij calculated that the
White Russians numbered 8,000,000. A thousand years of
historical development, different influences of civilization,
different religious confessions, and probably also the original
philological differentiation have caused the Little Russians to
develop as a separate nation, and to-day this fact must be taken
as a fixed factor. Among the White Russians the differentiation
has not developed to so advances a stage, but the tendency
exists. In classifying the Little Russians three different types
can be again distinguished: the Ukrainian, the
Podolian-Galician, and the Podlachian. Ethnographically
interesting as the Little Russian or Ruthenian tribes in the
Carpathians, the Lemci, Boici, and Huzuli (Gouzouli). The White
Russians are divided into two groups; ethnographically the
eastern group is related to the Great Russians; the western to
the Poles.
B. Poles
The Poles represent the northwestern branch of the Slavonic
race. From the very earliest times they have lived in their
ancestral regions between the Carpathians, the Oder, and the
North Sea. A thousand years ago Boleslaw the Brave united all
the Slavonic tribes living in these territories into a Polish
kingdom. This kingdom which reached its highest prosperity at
the close of the Middle Ages, then gradually declined and, at
the close of the eighteenth century, was divided by the
surrounding powers -- Russia, Prussia, and Austria. In Austria
the Poles form the population of Western Galicia and are in a
large minority throughout Eastern Galicia; in Eastern Galicia
the population of the cities particularly is preponderantly
Polish, as is also a large part of the population of a section
of Austrian Silesia, the district of Teschin. The Poles are
largely represented in the County of Zips in Hungary and less
largely in other Hungarian counties which border on Western
Galicia. There is a small Polish population in Bukowina. In
Prussia the Poles live in Upper Silesia, from a large majority
of the inhabitants of the Province of Posen, and also inhabit
the districts of Dantzic and Marienwerder in West Prussia, and
the southern parts of East Prussia. In Russia the Poles from
71.95 percent of the population in the nine provinces formed
from the Polish kingdom. In addition they live in the
neighbouring district of the Province of Grodno and form a
relatively large minority in Lithuania and in the provinces of
White and Little Russia, where they are mainly owners of large
estates and residents of cities. According to the census of 1900
the Poles in Russia numbered about 8,400,000; in Austria,
4,259,150, in Germany, including the Kasubes and Mazurians,
3,450,200; in the rest of Europe about 55,000; and in America
about 1,500,00; consequently altogether, 17,664,350. Czerkawski
reckoned the total number of Poles to be 21,111,374; Straszewicz
held that they numbered from 18 to 19,000,000. As regards
religion the Poles of Russia are almost entirely Catholic; in
Austria 83.4 per cent are Catholics, 14.7 percent are Jews, and
1.8 per cent are Protestants; in Germany they are also almost
entirely Catholics, only the Mazurians in East Prussia and a
small portion of the Kasubes are Protestant.
Ethnographically the Polish nation is divided into three groups:
the Great Poles live in Posen, Silesia, and Prussia; the Little
Poles on the upper Vistula as far as the San River and in the
region of the Tatra mountains; the Masovians east of the Vistula
and along the Narva and the Bug. The Kasubes could be called a
fourth group. All these groups can be subdivided again into a
large number of branches, but the distinctions are not so
striking as in Russia and historical tradition keeps all these
peoples firmly united. The Kasubes live on the left bank of the
Vistula from Dantzic to the boundary of Pomerania and to the
sea. According to government statistics in 1900 there were in
Germany 100,213 Kasubes. The very exact statistics of the
scholar Ramult gives 174,831 Kasubes for the territory where
they live in large bodies, and 200,000 for a total including
those scattered through Germany, to which should be added a
further 130,000 in America. According to the latest
investigation the Kasubes are what remains of the Slavs of
Pomerania who are, otherwise, long extinct.
C. Lusatian Sorbs
The Lusatian Sorbs are the residue of the Slavs of the Elbe who
once spread across the Oder and Elbe, inhabiting the whole of
the present Germany. During centuries of combat with the Germans
their numbers gradually decreased. They are divided into three
main groups: the Obotrites who inhabited the present
Mecklenburg, Lueneburg, and Holstein whence they extended into
the Old Mark; the Lutici or Veltae, who lived between the Oder
and Elbe, the Baltic and the Varna; the Sorbs, who lived on the
middle course of the Elbe between the Rivers Havel and Bober.
The Lutici died out on the Island of Ruegen at the beginning of
the fifteenth century. In the middle of the sixteenth century
there were still large numbers of Slavs in Lueneburg and in the
northern part of the Old Mark, while their numbers were less in
Mecklenburg and in Brandenburg. However, even in Lueneburg the
last Slavs disappeared between 1750-60. Only the Lusatian Sorbs
who lived nearer the borders of Bohemia have been able to
maintain themselves in declining numbers until the present time.
The reason probably is that for some time their territory
belonged to Bohemia. At present the Lusatian Sorbs numbers about
150,000 persons on the upper course of the Spree. They are
divided into two groups, which differ so decidedly from each
other in speech and customs that some regard them as two
peoples; they also have two separate literatures. They are
rapidly becoming Germanized, especially in Lower Lusatia. The
Lusatian Sorbs are Catholics with exception of 15,000 in Upper
Lusatia.
D. Bohemians and Slovaks
The Bohemians and Slovaks also belong to the northwestern branch
of the Slavonic peoples. They entered the region now
constituting Bohemia from the north and then spread farther into
what is now Moravia and Northern Hungary, and into the present
Lower Austria as far as the Danube. The settlements of the
Slovaks in Hungary must have extended far towards the south,
perhaps as far as Lake Platten, where they came into contact
with the Slovenes who belonged to the southern Slavonic group.
Probably, however, they did not formerly extend as far towards
the east as now, and the Slovaks in the eastern portion of
Slovakia are really Ruthenians who were Slovakanized in the late
Middle Ages. Directly after their settlement in these countries
the Bohemians fell apart into a great number of tribes. One
tribe, which settled in the central part of the present Bohemia,
bore the name of Czechs. It gradually brought all the other
tribes under its control and gave them its name, so that since
then the entire people have been called Czechs. Along with this
name, however, the name Bohemians has also been retained; it
comes from the old Celtic people, the Boii, who once lived in
these regions. Soon, however, German colonies sprang up among
the Bohemians or Czechs. The colonists settled along the Danube
on the southern border of Bohemia and also farther on in the
Pannonian plain. However, these settlements disappeared during
the storm of the Magyar incursion. The Bohemians did not suffer
from it as they did from the later immigrations of German
colonists who brought into the country by the Bohemian rulers of
the native Premsylidian dynasty. These colonists lived through
the mountains which encircle Bohemia and large numbers of them
settled also in the interior of the country. From the thirteenth
century the languages of Bohemia and Moravia became distinct
tongues.
The Bohemians have emigrated to various countries outside of
Bohemia-Moravia. In America there are about 800,000 Bohemians;
there are large Bohemian colonies in Russian in the province of
Volhynia, also in the Crimea, in Poland, and in what is called
New Russia, altogether numbering 50,385. In Bulgaria there are
Bohemian colonies in Wojewodovo and near Plevna; there is also a
Bohemian colony in New Zealand. Nearly 400,000 Bohemians live at
Vienna, and there are large numbers of Bohemians in the cities
of Linz, Pesth, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Triest; there are
smaller, well-organized Bohemian colonies in nearly all Austrian
cities, besides large Bohemian colonies in Hungary and Slavonia.
In the last-mentioned country there are 31,581 Bohemians. These
settlements are modern. The Slovaks occupy the southeastern part
of Moravia and the northeastern part of Hungary from the
Carpathians almost to the Danube. But there are scattered
settlements of Slovaks far into the Hungarian plain and even in
Southern Hungary, besides colonies of Slovaks in Slavonia. On
account of the barreness of the soil of their native land many
Slovaks emigrate to America. According to the Austrian census of
1900 there were 5,955,297 Bohemians in Austria. The numbers may
be decidedly higher. In Germany there were 115,000 Bohemians,;
in Hungary 2,019,641 Slovaks and 50,000 Bohemians; in America
there are at least 800,000 Bohemians; in Russia 55,000; in the
rest of Europe 20,000. Consequently taking all Bohemians and
Slovaks together there are probably over 9,000,000. If, as is
justifiable, the figures for America, Vienna, Moravia, Silesia,
and Hungary are considered entirely too low, a maximum of about
10,000,000 may be accepted. As to religion 96.5 percent of the
Bohemians are Catholics, and 2.4 percent are Protestants; 70.2
per cent of t the Slovaks are Catholics, 5.3 percent are
Byzantine Catholics, and 23 percent are Protestants.
E. Slovenes
The Slovenes belong, together with the Croats, Serbs, and
Bulgarians, to the southern group of Slavs. The Slovenes have
the position farther to the west in the Alps and on the
Adriatic. They first appeared in this region after the departure
of the Lombards for Italy and the first date in their history in
595, when they fought an unsuccessful battle with the Bavarian
Duke Tassilo on the field of Roblach. They occupied at first a
much larger territory than at present. They extended along the
Drave as far as the Tyrol, reaching the valleys of the Rivers
Riem and Eisack; they also occupied the larger part of what is
now Upper Austria, Lower Austria as far as the Danube, and from
the district of the Lungau in Southern Salzburg through
Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, the crownland of Goerz-Gradiska,
and a large part of Friuli. Under German supremacy the territory
occupied by them has grown considerable less in the course of
the centuries. They still maintain themselves only in Carniola,
in the northern part of Istria, about Goerz, and in the vicinity
of Triest, in the mountainous districts north of Udine in Italy,
in the southern part of Carinthia and Styria, and in the
Hungarians countries bordering on the farther side of the Mur
River. Carinthia is becoming rapidly Germanized, and the
absorption of the other races in Hungary constantly advances.
According to the census of 1900 there were 1,192,780 Slovenes in
Austria, 94,993 in Hungary, 20,987 in Croatia and Slavonia,
probably 37,000 in Italy, in America 100,000 and 20,000 in other
countries. There are, taking them altogether, probably about
1,5000,000 Slovenes int he world; 99 percent of them are
Catholics.
F. Croats and Serbs
In speech the Croats and Serbs are one people; they have the
same literary language, but use different characters. The Croats
write with the Latin characters and the Serbs with the Cyrillic.
They have been separated into two peoples by religion, political
development, and different forms of civilization; the Croats
came under the influence of Latin civilization, the Serbs under
that of the Byzantines. After the migration the warlike tribe of
the Croats gained the mastery over the Slavonic tribes then
living in the territory between the Kulpa and the Drave, the
Adriatic and the River Cetina, in Southern Dalmatia. They
founded the Croat Kingdom on the remains of Latin civilization
and with Roman Catholicism as their religion. Thus the Croat
nation appeared. It was not until a later date that the tribes
living to the south and east began to unite politically under
the old Slavonic name of Serbs, and in this region the Serbian
nation developed. Decided movements of the population came about
later, being caused especially by the Turkish wars. The Serbian
settlements, which originally followed only a southeastern
course, now turned in an entirely opposite direction to the
northeast. The original home of the Serbs was abandoned largely
to the Albanians and Turks; the Serbs emigrated to Bosnia and
across Bosnia to Dalmatia and even to Italy, where Slavonic
settlements still exist in Abruzzi. Others crossed the
boundaries of the Croat Kingdom and settled in large numbers in
Serbia and Slavonia, also in Southern Hungary, where the
Austrian Government granted them religious and national autonomy
and a patriarch of their own. Some of the Serbs settled here
went to Southern Russia and founded there what is called the New
Serbia in the Government of Kherson. Consequently, the
difference between the Croats and the Serbs consists not in the
language but mainly in the religion, also in the civilization,
history, and in the form of handwriting. But all these
characteristic differences are not very marked, and thus there
are districts and sections of population which cannot be easily
assigned to one or the other nation, and which both peoples are
justified in claiming.
Taking Serbs and Croats together there are: in Austria 711,382;
in Hungary and Croatia, 2,839,016; in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
probably 1,7000,000; in Montenegro, 350,000; in Serbia
2,298,551; Old Serbia and Macedonia, 350,000; Albania and the
vilayet of Scutari, about 100,000; Italy 5000; Russia 2000;
America and elsewhere, 300,000. In addition there are about
108,000 Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians,
Serbo-Croatian tribes in Hungary who were not included with
these in the census. Consequently the number of this bipartite
people may by reckoned approximately as 8,700,000 persons.
According to Serbian computation there are about 2,300,000
Croats in Austria-Hungary; the Croats reckon their number as
over 2,700,000. The controversy results from the uncertainty as
to the group to which the Bosnian Moslems and the
above-mentioned Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians, as
well as the population of Southern Dalmatia, belong. As to
religion, the Serbs are almost exclusively Eastern Orthodox, the
Croats Catholic, the great majority of the inhabitants of
Southern Dalmatia are Catholic, but many consider themselves as
belonging to the Serbian nation. The branches in Hungary
mentioned above are Catholic; it is still undecided whether to
include them among the Croats or Serbs.
G. Bulgarians
The Slavonic tribes living in ancient Roman Moesia and Thrace
south of the Danube and southeast of the Serbs as far as the
Black Sea came under the sway of the Turanian tribe of the
Bulgars, which established the old Kingdom of Bulgaria in this
region as early as the second half of the seventh century. The
conquerors soon began to adopt the language and customs of the
subjugated people, and from this intermixture arose the
Bulgarian people. The historical development was not a quiet and
uniform one; there were continual migrations and remigration,
conquests and inter- mingling. When the Slavs first entered the
Balkan peninsula they spread far beyond their present boundaries
and even covered Greece and the Peloponnesus, which seemed about
to become Slavonic. However, thanks to their higher civilization
and superior tactics, the Greeks drove back the Slavs. Still,
Slavonic settlements continued to exist in Greece and the
Peloponnesus until the late Middle Ages. The Greeks were aided
by the Turkish conquest, and the Slavs were forced to withdraw
to the limit that is still maintained. The Turks then began to
force back the Slavonic population in Macedonia and Bulgaria and
to plant colonies of their own people in certain districts. The
chief aim of the Turkish colonization was always to obtain
strategic points and to secure the passes over the Balkans. The
Slavonic population also began to withdraw from the plains along
the Danube where naturally great battles were often fought, and
which were often traversed by the Turkish army. A part emigrated
to Hungary, where a considerable number of Bulgarian settlements
still exist; others journeyed to Bessarabia and South Russia.
After the liberation of Bulgaria the emigrants began to return
and the population moved again from the mountains into the
valleys, while large numbers of Turks and Circassians went back
from liberated Bulgaria to Turkey.
On the other hand the emigration from Macedonia is still large.
Owing to these uncertain conditions, and especially on account
of the slight investigation of the subject in Macedonia, it is
difficult to give the size of the Bulgarian population even
approximately. In approximate figures the Bulgarians number: in
the Kingdom of Bulgaria, 2,864,735; Macedonia, 1,200,000; Asia
Minor, 600,000; Russia, 180,000; Rumania, 90,000; in other
countries 50,000, hence there are altogether perhaps over
5,000,000. In Bulgaria there are besides the Bulgarian
population, 20,644 Pomaks, that is Moslems who speak Bulgarian,
1516 Serbs, 531,217 Turks, 9862 Gagauzi (Bulgarians who speak
Turkish), 18,874 Tatars, 66,702 Greeks in cities along the
coast, 89,563 Gypsies, and 71,023 Rumanians. The kingdom,
therefore, is not an absolutely homogeneous nationality. In
religion the Bulgarians are Eastern Orthodox with the exception
of the Pomaks, already mentioned, and of the Paulicians who are
Catholics. The Bulgarians are divided into a number of branches
and dialects; it is often doubtful whether some of these
subdivisions should not be included among the Serbs. This is
especially the case in Macedonia, consequently all enumerations
of the population differ extremely from one another.
If, on the basis of earlier results, the natural annual growth
of the Slavonic populations is taken as 1.4 percent, it may be
claimed that there were about 156-157 million Slavs in the year
1910. In 1900 all Slavs taken together numbered approximately
136,500,000 persons divided thus: Russians, 94,000,000; Poles,
17,500,000; Lusatian Serbs, 150,000; Bohemians and Slovaks,
9,800,000; Slovenes, 1,500,000; Serbo-Croats, 8,550,000;
Bulgarians, 5,000,000.
LEOPOLD LENARD
The Slavs in America
The Slavs in America
The Slavic races have sent large numbers of their people to the
United States and Canada, and this immigration is coming every
year in increasing numbers. The earliest immigration began
before the war of the States, but within the past thirty years
it has become so great as quite to overshadow the Irish and
German immigration of the earlier decades. For two-thirds of
that period no accurate figures of tongues or nationalities were
kept, the immigrants being merely credited to the political
governments or countries from which they came, but within the
past twelve years more accurate data have been preserved. During
these years (1899-1910) the total immigration into the United
States has been about 10,000,000 in round numbers, and of these
the Slavs have formed about 22 percent (actually 2,117,240), to
say nothing of the increase of native-born Slavs in this country
during that period, as well as the numbers of the earlier
arrivals. Reliable estimated compiled from the various racial
sources show that there are from five and a half to six millions
of Slavs in the United States, including the native-born of
Slavic parents. We are generally unaware of these facts, because
the Slavs are less conspicuous among us than the Italians,
Germans, or Jews; their languages and their history are
unfamiliar and remote, besides they are not so massed in the
great cities of this country.
I. BOHEMIANS
(Cech; adjective, cesky, Bohemian)
These people -- also called the Czechs -- are named Bohemians
after the original tribe of the Boii, who dwelt in Bohemia in
Roman times. By a curious perversion of language, on account of
various gypsies who about two centuries ago travelled westward
across Bohemia and thereby came to be known in France as
"Bohemians," the word Bohemian came into use to designate one
who lived an easy, careless life, unhampered by serious
responsibilities. Such a meaning is, however, the very
antithesis of the serious conservative Czech character. The
names of a few Bohemians are found in the early history of the
United States. Augustyn Herman (1692) of Bohemia Manor,
Maryland, and Bedrich Filip (Frederick Philipse, 1702) of
Philipse Manor, Yonkers, New York, are the earliest. In 1848 the
revolutionary uprisings in Austria sent many Bohemians to this
country. In the eighteenth century the Moravian Brethren
(Bohemian Brethren) had come in large numbers. The finding of
gold in California in 1849-50 attracted many more, especially as
serfdom and labour dues were abolished in Bohemia at the end of
1848, which left the peasant and the workman free to travel. In
1869 and the succeeding years immigration was stimulated by the
labour strikes in Bohemia, and one occasion all the women
workers of several cigar factories came over and settled in New
York. About 60 percent of the Bohemians and Moravians who have
settled here are Catholics, and their churches have been fairly
maintained. Their immigration during the past ten years has been
98,100, and in 1910 the number of Bohemians in the United
States, immigrants and native born, was reckoned at 55,000. They
have some 140 Bohemian Catholic churches and about 250 Bohemian
priests; their societies, schools, and general institutions are
active and flourishing.
II. BULGARIANS
(Bulgar; adjective bulgarski, Bulgarian)
This part of the Slavic race inhabits the present Kingdom of
Bulgaria, and the Turkish provinces of Eastern Rumelia,
representing ancient Macedonia. Thus it happens that the
Bulgarians are almost equally divided between Turkey and
Bulgaria. Their ancestors were the Bolgars or Bulgars, a Finnish
tribe, which conquered, intermarried, and coalesced with the
Slav inhabitants, and eventually gave their name to them. The
Bulgarian tongue is in many respects the nearest to the Church
Slavonic, and it was the ancient Bulgarian which Sts. Cyril and
Methodius are said to have learned in order to evangelize the
pagan Slavs. The modern Bulgarian language, written with Russian
characters and a few additions, differs from the other Slavic
languages in that it, like English, has lost nearly every
inflection, and, like Rumanian, has the peculiarity of attaching
the article to the end of the word, while the other Slavic
tongues have no article at all. The Bulgarians who have gained
their freedom from Turkish supremacy in the present Kingdom of
Bulgaria are fairly contented; but those in Macedonia chafe
bitterly against Turkish rule and form a large portion of those
who emigrate to America. The Bulgarians are nearly all of the
Greek Orthodox Church; there are some twenty thousand Byzantine
Catholics, mostly in Macedonia, and about 50,000 Latin-Rite
Catholics. The Greek Patriach of Constantinople has always
claimed jurisdiction over the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and he
enforced his jurisdiction until 1872, when the Bulgarian exarch
was appointed to exercise supreme jurisdiction. Since that time
the Bulgarians have been in a state of schism to the patriarch.
They are ruled in Bulgaria by a Holy Synod of their own, whilst
the Bulgarian exarch, resident in Constantinople, is the head of
the entire Bulgarian Church. He is recognized by the Russian
Church, but is considered excommunicate by the Greek Patriarch,
who however retained his authority over the Greek-speaking
churches of Macedonia and Bulgaria.
Bulgarians came to the United States as early as 1890; but there
were then only a few of them as students, mostly from Macedonia,
brought hither by mission bodies to study for the Protestant
ministry. The real immigration began in 1905, when it seems that
the Bulgarians discovered America as a land of opportunity,
stimulated probably by the Turkish and Greek persecutions then
raging in Macdeonia against them. The railroads and steel works
in the West needed men, and several enterprising steamship
agents brought over Macedonians and Bulgarians in large numbers.
Before 1906 there were scarcely 500 to 600 Bulgarians in the
country, and these chiefly in St. Louis, Missouri. Since then
they have been coming at the rate of from 8000 to 10,000 a year,
until now (1911) there are from 80,000 to 90,000 Bulgarians
scattered throughout the United States and Canada. The majority
of them are employed in factories, railroads, mines, and sugar
works. Granite City, Madison, and Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis,
Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Steelton, Pennsylvania;
Portland, Oregon, and New York City all have a considerable
Bulgarian population. They also take to farming and are
scattered throughout the northwest. They now (1911) have three
Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, at Granite City
and Madison, Illinois, and at Steelton, Pennsyvania, as well as
several mission stations. Their clergy consist of one monk and
two secular priests; and they also have a church in Toronto,
Canada. There are not Bulgarian Catholics, either of the Greek
or Roman Rite sufficient to form a church here. The Bulgarians,
unlike the other Slavs, have no church or benefit societies or
brotherhood in America. They publish five Bulgarian papers, of
which the "Naroden Glas" of Granite City in the most important.
III. CROATIANS
(Hrvat; adjective, hrvatski, Croatian)
These are the inhabitants of the autonomous or home-rule
province of Croatia-Slavonia, in the southwestern part of the
Kingdom of Hungary where it reaches down to the Adriatic Sea. It
included not only them but also the Slavic inhabitants of Istria
and Dalmatia, in Austria, and those of Bosnia and Herzegovina
who are Catholic and use the Roman alphabet. In blood and speech
the Croatians and Serbians are practically one; but religion and
politics divide them. The former are Catholics and use the Roman
letters; the latter are Greek Orthodox and use modified Russian
letters. In many of the places on the borderline school-children
have to learn both alphabets. The English word "cravat" is
derived from their name, it being the Croatian neckpiece which
the south Austrian troops wore. Croatia-Slavonia itself has a
population of nearly 2,500,000 and is about one-third the size
of the state of New York. Croatia in the west is mountainous and
somewhat poor, while Slavonia in the east is level, fertile, and
productive. Many Dalmatian Croats from seaport town came here
from 1850 to 1870. The original emigration from Croatia-Slavonia
began in 1873, upon the completion of the new railway
connections to the seaport of Fiume, when some of the more
adventurous Croatians came to the United States. From the early
eighties the Lipa-Krbava district furnished much of the
emigration. The first Croatian settlements were made in Calumet,
Michigan, while many of them became lumbermen in Michigan and
stave-cutters along the Mississippi. Around Agram (Zagreb, the
Croatian capital) the grape disease caused large destruction of
vineyards and the consequent emigration of thousands. Later on
emigration began from Varasdin and from Slavonia also, and now
immigrants arrive from every county in Croatia-Slavonia. In 1899
the figures for Croatia-Slavonia were 2923, and by 1907 the
annual immigration had risen to 22,828, the largest number
coming from Agram and Varasdin Counties. Since then it has
fallen off, and at the present time (1911) it is not quite
20,000. Unfortunately the governmental statistics do not
separate the Slovenians from the Croatians in giving the
arrivals of Austro-Hungarian immigrants, but the Hungarian
figures of departures serve as checks.
The number of Croatians in the United States at present,
including the native-born, is about 280,000, divided according
to their origin as follows: from Croatia-Slavonia, 160,000;
Dalmatia, 80,000; Bosnia, 20,000; Herzegovina, 15,000; and the
remainder from various parts of Hungary and Serbia. The largest
group of them is in Pennsylvania, chiefly in the neighbourhood
of Pittsburg, and they number probably from 80,000 to 100,000.
Illinois has about 45,000, chiefly in Chicago. Ohio has about
35,000, principally in Cleveland and the vicinity. Other
considerable colonies are in New York, San Francisco, St. Louis,
Kansas City, and New Orleans. They are also in Montana,
Colorado, and Michigan. The Dalmatians are chiefly engaged in
business and grape culture; the other Croatians are mostly
labourers employed in mining, railroad work, steel mills,
stockyards, and stone quarries. Nearly all of these are
Catholics, and they now have one Greek Catholic and 16
Latin-Rite Catholic churches in the United States. The Greek
Catholics are almost wholly from the Diocese of Krizevac
(Crisium), and are chiefly settled at Chicago and Cleveland.
They have some 250 societies devoted to church and patriotic
purposes, and in some cases to Socialism, but as yet they have
no very large central organization, the National Croatian Union
with 29,247 members being the largest. They publish ten
newspapers, among them two dailies, of which "Zajednicar" the
organ of Narodne Hrvatske Zajednice (National Croatian Union) is
the best known.
IV. POLES
(Polak, a Pole; adjective polski, Polish)
The Poles came to the United States quite early in its history.
Aside from some few early settlers, the American Revolution
attracted such noted men as Kosciuszko and Pulaski, together
with many of their fellow countrymen. The Polish Revolution of
1830 brought numbers of Poles to the United States. In 1851 a
Polish colony settled in Texas, and called their settlement
Panna Marya (Our Lady Mary). In 1860 they settled at Parisville,
Michigan, and Polonia, Wisconsin. Many distinguished Poles
served in the Civil War (1861-65) upon both sides. After 1873
the Polish immigration began to grow apace, chiefly from
Prussian Poland. Then the tide turned and came from Austria, and
later from Russian Poland. In 1890 they began to come in the
greatest numbers from Austrian and Russian Poland, until the
flow from German Poland has largely diminished. The immigration
within the past ten years has been as follows: from Russia, 53
percent; from Austria about 43 percent; and only a fraction over
4 percent from the Prussian or German portion. It is estimated
that there are at present about 3,000,000 Poles in the United
States, counting the native-born. It may be said that they are
almost solidly Catholic; the dissident and disturbing elements
among them being but comparatively small, while there is no
purely Protestant element at all. They have one Polish bishop,
about 750 priests, and some 520 churches and chapels, besides
355 school. There are large numbers, both men and women, who are
members of the various religious communities. The Poles publish
some 70 newspapers, amongst them nine dailies, 20 of which are
purely Catholic publications. Their religious and national
societies are large and flourishing; and altogether the Polish
element is active and progressive.
V. RUSSIANS
(Rossiyanin; adjective rossiiski, Russian)
Russia is the largest nation in Europe, and its Slavic
inhabitants (exclusive of Poles) are composed of Great Russians
or Northern Russians, White Russians or Western Russians, and
the Little Russians (Ruthenians) or Southern Russians. The area
around Moscow and St. Petersburg is called Great Russia, in
allusion to its stature and great predominance in number,
government, and language. The White Russians are so called from
the prevailing colour of the clothing of the peasantry, and
inhabit the provinces lying on the borders of Poland -- Vitebsk,
Mohilev, Minsk, Vilna, and Grodno. Their language differs but
slightly from Great Russian, inclining towards Polish and Old
Slavonic. The Little Russians (so called from their low stature)
differ considerably from the Great Russians in language and
customs, and they inhabit the Provinces of Kiev, Kharkov,
Tchernigov, Poltava, Podolia, and Volhynia, and they are also
found outside the Empire of Russia, in Galicia, Bukovina, and
Hungary (see below, section VI). The Great Russians may be
regarded as the norm of the Russian people. Their language
became the language of the court and of literature, just as High
German and Tuscan Italian did, and they form the overwhelming
majority of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire. They are
practically all Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics in Russia being
Poles or Germans where they are of the Roman Rite, and Little
Russians (Ruthenians) where they are of the Greek Rite.
The Russians have long been settled in America, for Alaska was
Russian territory before it was purchased by the United States
in 1867. The Russian Orthodox church has been on American soil
since the early nineteenth century. The immigration from Russia
is however composed of very few Russians. It is principally made
up of Jews (Russian and Polish), Poles, and Lithuanians. Out of
an average emigration of from 250,000 to 260,000 annually from
the Russian Empire to the United States, 65 percent have been
Jews and only from three to five percent actual Russians.
Nevertheless the Russian peasant and working class are active
emigrants, and the exodus from European Russia is relatively
large. But it is directed eastward instead of to the west, for
Russia is intent upon settling up her vast prairie lands in
Siberia. Hinderances are placed in the way of those Russians
(except the Hews) who would leave for America or the west of
Europe, while inducements and advantages are offered for
settlers in Siberia. For the past five years about 500,000
Russians have annually migrated to Siberia, a number equal to
one-half the immigrants yearly received by the United States
from all sources. They go in great colonies and are aided by the
Russian Government by grants of land, loans of money, and low
transportation. New towns and cities have sprung up all over
Siberia, which are not even on our maps, thus rivalling the
American settlement of the Dakotas and the North West. Many
Russians religious colonists, other than the Jews, have come to
America; but often they are not wholly of Slavic blood or are
Little Russians (Ruthenians). It therefore happens that there
are very few Russians in the United States as compared with
other nationalities. There are, according to the latest
estimates, about 75,000, chiefly in Pennsylvania and the Middle
West. There has been a Russian colony in San Francisco for sixty
years, and they are numerous in and around New York City.
The Russian Orthodox Church is well established here. About a
third of the russians in the United States are opposed to it,
being of the anti-government, semi-revolutionary type of
immigrant. But the others are enthusiastic in support of their
Church and their national customs, yet their Church included not
only them but the Little Russians of Bukovina and a very large
number of Greek Catholics of Galicia and Hungary whom they have
induced to leave the Catholic and enter the Orthodox Church. The
Russian Church in the United States is endowed by the tsar and
the Holy Governing Synod, besides having the support of Russian
missionary societies at home, and is upon a flourishing
financial basis in the United States. It now (1911) has 83
churches and chapels in the United States, 15 in Alaska, and 18
in Canada, making a total of 126 places of worship, besides a
theological seminary at Minneapolis and a monastery at South
Canaan, Pennsylvannia. Their present clergy is composed of one
archbishop, one bishop, 6 proto-priests, 89 secular priests, 2
archimandrites, 2 hegumens, and 18 monastic priests, making a
total of 119, while they also exercise jurisdiction over the
Serbian and Syrian Orthodox clergy besides. Lately they took
over a Greek Catholic sisterhood, and now have four Basilian
nuns. The United States is now divided up into the following six
districts of the Russian Church, intended to be the territory
for future dioceses: New York and the New England States,
Pennsylvania and the Atlantic States; Pittsburg and the Middle
West; Western Pacific States; Canada; and Alaska. Their
statistics of church population have not been published lately
in their year-books, and much of their growth has been of late
years by additions gained from the Greek Catholic Ruthenians of
Galicia and Hungary, and is due largely to the active and
energetic work and financial support of the Russian church
authorities at St. Petersburg and Moscow.
They have the "Russkoye Pravoslavnoye Obshestvo Vzaimopomoshchi"
(Russian Orthodox Mutual Aid Society) for men, founded in 1895,
now (1911) having 199 councils and 7072 members, and the women's
division of the same, founded in 1907, with 32 councils and 690
members. They publish two church papers, "America Orthodox
Messenger", and "Svit"; although there are some nine other
Russian papers published by Jews and Socialists.
VI. RUTHENIANS
(Rusin; adjective russky, Ruthenian)
These are the southern branch of the Russian family, extending
from the middle of Austria-Hungary across the southern part of
Russia. The use of the adjective russky by both the Ruthenians
and the Russians permits it to be translated into English by the
work "Ruthenian" or "Russian". They are also called Little
Russians (Malorossiani) in Russia itself, and sometimes
Russniaki in Hungary. The appellations "Little Russians" and
"Ruthenians" have come to have almost a technical meaning, the
former indicating subjects of the Russian Empire who are of the
Greek Orthodox Church, and the latter those who are in
Austria-Hungary and are Catholics of the Greek Rite. Those who
are active in the Panslavic movement and are Russo-philes are
very anxious to have then called "Russians", no matter whence
they come. The Ruthenians are of the original Russo-Slavic race,
and gave their name to the peoples making up the present Russian
Empire. They are spread all over the southern part of Russia, in
the provinces of Kiev, Kharkov, Tchernigogg, Poltava, and
Podolia, and Volhynia (see above, V. RUSSIANS), but by force of
governmental pressure and restrictive laws are being slowly made
into Great Russians. Only within the past five years has the use
of their own form of language and their own newspapers and press
been allowed by law in Russia. Nearly every Ruthenian author in
the empire has written his chief works in Great Russian, because
denied the use of his own language. They are also spread
throughout the Provinces of Lublin, in Poland; Galicia and
Bukovina, in Austria; and the Counties of Szepes, Saros, Abauj,
Zamplim, Ung, Marmos, and Bereg, in Hungary. They have had an
opportunity to develop in Austria and also in Hungary. In the
latter country they are closely allied with the Slovaks, and
many of them speak the Slovak language. They are all of the
Greek Rite, and with the exception of those in Russia and
Bukovina are Catholics. They use the Russian alphabet for their
language, and in Bukovina and a portion of Galicia have a
phonetic spelling, thus differing largely from Great Russian,
even in words that are common to both.
Their immigration to America commenced in 1880 as labourers in
the coal mines of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and has steadily
increased ever since. Although they were the poorest of peasants
and labourers, illiterate for the most part and unable to grasp
the English langauge or American customs when they arrived, they
have rapidly risen in the scale of prosperity and are now
rivalling the other nationalities in progress. Greek Ruthenian
churches and institutions are being established upon a
substantial basis, and their clergy and schools are steadily
advancing. They are scattered all over the United States, and
there are now (1911) between 489,000 and 500,000 of them,
counting immigrants and native born. Their immigration for the
past five years has been as follows: 1907, 24,081; 1908, 12,361;
1909, 15,808; 1910, 27,970; 1911, 17,724; being an average of
20,000 a year. They have chiefly settled in the State of
Pennsylvania, over half of them being there; but Ohio, New York,
New Jersey, and Illinois have large numbers of them. The Greek
Rite in the Slavonic language is firmly established through them
in the United States, but they suffer greatly from Russian
Orthodox endeavours to lead them from the Catholic Church, as
well as from frequent internal dissensions (chiefly of an
old-world political nature) among themselves. They have 152
Greek Catholic churches, with a Greek clergy consisting of a
Greek Catholic bishop who has his seat at Philadelphia, but
without diocesan powers as yet, and 127 priests, of whom 9 are
Basilian monks. During 1911 Ruthenian Greek Catholic nuns of the
Order of St. Basil were introduced. The Ruthenians have
flourishing religious mutual benefit societies, which also
assist in the building of Greek churches. The "Soyedineniya
Greko-Katolicheskikh Bratstv" (Greek Catholic Union) in its
senior division has 509 members, brotherhoods or councils and
30,255 members, while the junior division has 226 brotherhoods
and 15,200 members; the "Russky Narodny Soyus" (Ruthenian
National Union) has 301 brotherhoods and 15,200 members; while
the "Obshchestvo Russkikh Bratstv" (Society of Russian
Brotherhood) has 129 brotherhoods and 7359 members. There are
also many Ruthenians who belong to Slovak organizations. The
Ruthenians publish some ten papers, of which the "Amerikansky
Russky Vietnik", "Svododa", and "Dushpastyr" are the principal
ones.
VII. SERBIANS
(Srbin; adjective srpski, Serbian, or Servian)
This designation applies not only to the inhabitants of the
Kingdom of Serbia, but includes the people of the following
countries forming a geographical although not a political whole:
southern Hungary, the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, the
Turkish Provinces of Kossovo, Western Macedonia, and Novi-Bazar,
and the annexed Austrian provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The last two provinces may be said to furnish the shadowy
boundary line between the Croatians and the Serbians. The two
peoples are ethnologically the same, and the Serbian and
Croatian languages are merely two dialects of the same Slavonic
tongue. Serbians are sometimes called the Shtokavski, because
the Serbian word for "what" is shto, while the Croats use the
word cha for "what", and Croatians are called Chakavski. The
Croatians are Catholics and use the Roman alphabet (latinica),
whilst the Serbians are Eastern Orthodox and use the Cyrillic
alphabet (cirilica), with additional signs to express special
sounds not found in the Russian. Serbians who happen to be
Catholic are called Bunjevaci (disturbers, dissenters).
Serbian immigration to the United States did not commence until
about 1892, when several hundred Montenegrins and Serbians came
with the Dalmatians and settled in California. It began to
increase largely in 1903 and was at its highest in 1907. They
are largely settled in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. There
are no governmental statistics showing how many Serbians come
from Serbia and how many from the surrounding provinces. The
Serbian Government has established a special consular office in
New York City to look after Serbian immigration. There are now
(1911) about 150,000 Serbians in the United States. They are
located as follows: New England States, 25,000; Middle Atlantic
States, 50,000; Middle Western States, 25,000; Western and
Pacific States, 25,000; and the remainder throughout the
Southern States and Alaska. They have brought with them their
Orthodox clergy, and are at present affiliated with the Russian
Orthodox Church here although they expect shortly to have their
own national bishop. They now (1911) have in the United States
20 churches (of which five are in Pennsylvania) and 14 clergy,
of whom 8 are monks and 6 seculars. They publish eight
newspapers in Serbian, of which "Amerikanski Srbobran" of
Pittsburg, "Srbobran" of New York, and "Srpski Glasnik" of San
Francisco are the most important. They have a large number of
church and patriotic societies, of which the Serb Federation
"Sloga" (Concord) with 131 drustva or council and over 10,000
members and "Prosvjeta" (Progress), composed of Serbians from
Bosnia and Herzegovina, are the most prominent.
VIII. SLOVAKS
(Slovak; adjective slovensky, Slovak)
These occupy the northwestern portion of the Kingdom of Hungary
upon the southern slopes of the Carpathian mountains, ranging
over a territory comprising the Counties of Poszony, Nyitra,
Bars, Hont, Zolyom, Trencsen, Turocz, Arva, Liptoe, Szepes,
Saros, Zemplin, Ung, Abauj, Goemoer, and Nograd. A well-defined
ethnical line is all that divides the Slovaks from the
Ruthenians and the Magyars. Their language is almost the same as
the Bohemian, for they received their literature and their mode
of writing it from the Bohemians, and even now nearly all the
Protestant Slovak literature is from Bohemian sources. It must
be remembered however that the Bohemians and Moravians dwell on
the northern side of the Carpathian mountains in Austria, whilst
the Slovaks are on the south of the Carpathians and are wholly
in Hungary. Between the Moravians and the Slovaks, dwelling so
near to one another, the relationship was especially close. The
Slovak and Moravian people were among those who first heard the
story of Christ from the Slavonic apostles Sts. Cyril and
Methodius, and at one time their tribes must have extended down
to the Danube and the southern Slavs. The Magyars (Hungarians)
came in from Asia and the East, and like a wedge divided this
group of northern Slavs from those on the south.
The Slovaks have had no independent history and have endured
successively Polish rule, Magyar conquest, Tatar invasions,
German invading colonization, Hussite raids from Bohemia, and
the dynastic wars of Hungary. In 1848-49, when revolution and
rebellion were in the air, the Hungarians began their war
against Austria; the Slovaks in turn rose against the Hungarians
for the language and national customs, but on the conclusion of
peace, they were again incorporated as part of Hungary without
any of their rights recognized. Later they were ruthlessly put
down when they refused to carry out the Hungarian decrees,
particularly as they had rallied to the support of the Austrian
throne. In 1861 the Slovaks presented their famous Memorandum to
the Imperial Throne of Austria, praying for a bill of rights and
for their autonomous nationality. Stephen Moyses, the
distinguished Slovak Catholic Bishop, besought the emperor to
grant national and language rights to them. The whole movement
awoke popular enthusiasm, Catholics and Protestants working
together for the common good. In 1862 high schools were opened
for Slovaks; the famous "Slovenska Matica", to publish Slovak
books and works of art and to foster the study of the Slovak
history and language, was founded; and in 1870 the Catholics
also founded the "Society of St. Voytech", which became a
powerful helper. Slovak newspapers sprang into existence and 150
reading clubs and libraries were established. After the defeat
of the Austrian arms at Sadowa in 1866, pressure was resumed to
split the empire into two parts, Austrian and Hungarian, each of
which was practically independent. The Slovaks thenceforth came
wholly under Hungarian rule. Then the Law of Nationalities was
passed which recognized the predominant position of the Magyars,
but gave some small recognition to the other minor
nationalities, such as the Slovaks, by allowing them to have
churches and schools conducted in their own language.
In 1878 the active Magyarization of Hungary was undertaken. The
doctrine was mooted that a native of the Kingdom of Hungary
could not be a patriot unless he spoke, thought, and felt as a
Magyar. A Slovak of education who remained true to his ancestry
(and it must be remembered that the Slovaks were there long
before the Hungarians came) was considered deficient in
patriotism. The most advanced political view was that a
compromise with the Slovaks was impossible; that there was but
one expedient, to wipe them out as far as possible by
assimilation with the Magyars. Slovak schools and institutions
were ordered to be closed, the charter of the "Matica" was
annulled, and its library and rich historical and artistic
collections, as well as its funds, were confiscated.
Inequalities of every kind before the law were devised for the
undoing of the Slovaks and turning them into Hungarians; so much
so that one of their authors likened them to the Irish in their
troubles. The Hungarian authorities in their endeavour to
suppress the Slovak nationality went even to the extent of
taking away Slovak children to be brought up as Magyars, and
forbade them to use their language in school and church. The
2,000,000 Catholic Slovaks clung to their language and Slavic
customs, but the clergy were educated in their seminaries
through the medium of the Magyar tongue and required in their
parishes to conform to the state idea. Among the 750,000
Protestant Slovaks the Government went even further by taking
control of their synods and bishops. Even Slovak family names
were changed to Hungarian ones, and preference was only through
Hungarians channels. Naturally, religion decayed under the
stress and strain of repressed nationality. Slovak priests did
not perform their duties with ardour or diligence, but confined
themselves to the mere routine of canonical obligation. There
are no monks or religious orders among the Slovaks and no
provision is made for any kind of community life. Catechetical
instruction is at a minimum and is required to be given whenever
possible through the medium of the Hungarian language. There is
no lack of priests in the Slovak country, yet the practice of
solemnizing the reception of the first communion by the children
is unknown and many other forms of Catholic devotion are
omitted. Even the Holy Rosary Society was dissolved, because its
devotions and proceedings and devotions were conducted in
Slovak. The result of governmental restriction of any national
expression has been a complete lack of initiative on the part of
the Slovak priesthood, and it is needless to speak of the result
upon their flocks. In the eastern part of the Slovak territory
where there were Slovak-speaking Greek Catholics, they fared
slightly better in regard to the attempts to make them
Hungarians. There the liturgy was Slavonic and the clergy who
used the Magyar tongue still were in close touch with their
people through the offices of the Church. All this pressure on
the part of the authorities tended to produce an active Slovak
emigration to America, while bad harvests and taxation also
contributed.
A few immigrants came to America in 1864 and their success
brought others. In the late seventies the Slovak exodus was well
marked, and by 1882 it was sufficiently important to be
investigated by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior and
directions given to repress it. The American immigration figures
indicated the first important Slovak influx in 1873 when 1300
immigrants came from Hungary, which rose to 4000 in 1880 and to
nearly 15,000 in 1884, most of them settling in the mining and
industrial regions of Pennsylvania. At first they came from the
Counties of Zemplin, Saros, Szepes, and Ung, where there were
also many Ruthenians. They were called "Huns" or "Hankies", and
were used at first to fill the places left vacant by strikers.
They were very poor and willing to work for little when they
arrived, and were accordingly hated by the members of the
various unions. The Slovak girls, like the Irish, mostly went
into service, and because they had almost no expense for living
managed to earn more than the men. Today the Slovaks of America
are beginning to possess a national culture and organization,
which presents a striking contrast to the cramped development of
their kinsmen in Hungary. Their immigration of late years has
ranged annually from 52,368 in 1905 to 33,416 in 1910.
Altogether it is estimated that there are now some 560,000
Slovaks in the United States, including the native born. They
are spread throughout the country, chiefly in the following
states: Pennsylvania, 270,000; Ohio, 75,000; Illinois, 50,000;
New Jersey, 50,000; New York, 35,000; Connecticut, 20,000;
Indiana, 15,000; Missouri, 10,000; whilst they range from 5000
to a few hundreds in the other states. About 450,000 of them are
Latin-Rite Catholics, 10,000 Byzantine-Rite Catholics and 95,000
Protestants.
The first Slovak Catholic church in the United States was
founded by Rev. Joseph Kossalko at Streator, Illinois, and was
dedicated 8 Dec., 1883. Following this he also built St.
Joseph's Church at Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in 1884. In 1889 Rev.
Stephen Furdek founded the Church of St. Ladislas at Cleveland,
Ohio, together with a fine parochial school, both of which were
dedicated by Bishop Gilmour. The American bishops were anxious
to get Slovak priests for the increasing immigration, and Bishop
Gilmour sent Father Furdek to Hungary for that purpose. The
Hungarian bishops were unwilling to send Slovak priests at
first, but as immigration increased they acceded to the request.
At present (1911) the Catholic Slovaks have a clergy consisting
of one bishop (Rt. Rev. J.M. Koudelka) and 104 priests, and have
`34 churches situated as follows: in Pennsylvania, 81 (Dioceses
of Altoona, 10; Erie, 4; Harrisburg, 3; Philadelphia, 15;
Pittsburg, 35; and Scranton, 14); in Ohio, 14 (in the Diocese of
Cleveland, 12; and Columbus, 2); in Illinois, 10 (in the
Arch-diocese of Chicago, 7; and Peoria, 3); in New Jersey 11 (in
the Diocese of Newark, 7; and Trenton, 4); in New York, 6; and
in the States of Connecticut, 3; Indiana, 2; Wisconsin, 2; and
Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Alabama, and West Virginia, one
each. Some of the Slovak church buildings are very fine
specimens of church architecture. There are also 36 Slovak
parochial schools, that of Our Lady Mary in Cleveland having 750
pupils. They have also introduced and American order of Slovak
nuns, the Sisters of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who are
established under the direction of Bishop Hoban in the Diocese
of Scranton, where they have four schools.
The Protestant Slovaks followed the example of the Catholics and
established their first church at Streator, Illinois, in 1885,
and later founded a church at Minneapolis in 1888, and from 1890
to 1894 three churches in Pennsylvania. They now have in the
United States 60 Slovak churches and congregations (of which 28
are in Pennsylvania), with 34 ministers (not including some 5
Presbyterian clergymen), who are organized under the name of
"The Slovak Evangelical Lutheran Synod of America". The Slovaks
have a large number of organizations. The principal Catholic
ones are: Prva Katokicka Slovenska Jednota (First Slovak
Catholic Union), for men, 33,000 members; Pennsylvanska
Slovenska Rimsko a Grecko Katolicka Jednota (Pennsylvania Slovak
Roman and Greek Catholic Union), 7500 members; Prva Katolicka
Slovenska Zenska Jednota (First Catholic Slovak Women's Union),
12,000 members; Pennsylvanska Slovenska Zenska Jednota
(Pennsylvania Slovak Women's Union), 3500 members; Zivena
(Women's League), 6000 members. There are also: Narodny
Slovensky Spolok (National Slovak Society), which takes in all
Slovaks except Jews, 28,000 members; Evanjelicka Slovenska
Jednota (Evangelical Lutheran Slovak Union), 8000 members;
Kalvinska Slovenska Jednota (Presbyterian Slovak Union), 1000
members; Neodvisly Narodny Slovensky Spolok (Independent
National Slovak Society), 2000 members. They also have a large
and enterprising Press, publishing some fourteen papers. The
chief ones are: "Slovensky Dennik" (Slovak Journal), a daily, of
Pittsburg; "Slovak v Amerike" (Slovak in America), of New York;
"Narodne Noviny" (National News), a weekly, of Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, with 38,000 circulation; "Jednota" (The Union),
also a weekly, of Middleton, Pennsylvania, with 35,000
circulation; and "Bratstvo" (Brotherhood) of Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania. There are also Protestant and Socialistic
journals, whose circulation is small. Among the distinguished
Slovaks in the United States may be mentioned Rev. Joseph Murgas
of Wilkes-Barre, who, in addition to his work among his people,
has perfected several inventions in wireless telegraphy and is
favourably known in other scientific matters.
IX. SLOVENES
(Slovenec; adjective slovenski, Slovenian)
These come chiefly from southwestern Austria, from the Provinces
of Carniola (Kranjsko; Ger., Krain), Carinthia (Kransjsko; Ger.,
Kaernten), and Styria (Krain; Ger., Steiermark); as well as from
Resia (Resja) and Udine (Videm) in northeastern Italy, and the
Coast Lands (Primorsko) of Austria-Hungary. Their neighbours on
the southwest are Italians; on the west and north, Germans; on
the east, Germans and Magyars; and towards the south, Italians
and Croatians. Most of them are bilingual, speaking not only the
Slovenian but also the German language. For this reason they are
not so readily distinguishable in America as the other Slavs,
and have less trouble in assimilating themselves. At home the
main centres of their language and literature have been Laibach
(Ljubljana), Klagenfurt (Celovec), Graz (Gradec), and Goerz
(Gorica), the latter city being also largely Italian. In America
they are more often known as "Krainer", that being the German
adjective of Krain (Carniola), from whence the larger number of
them come to the United States; sometimes the word has even been
mispronounced and set down as "Griner". The Slovenes became
known somewhat early in the history of the United States. Father
Frederic Baraga was among the first of them to come here in
1830, and began his missionary work as a priest among the
Indians of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and finally
became the first Bishop of Marquette, Michigan. He studied the
Indian languages and wrote their grammars and history in his
various English, German, and Slovenian works. He also published
several catechisms and religious works in Slovenian, and brought
over several other Slovenian priests.
In Calumet, Michigan, the Slovenes settled as early as 1856;
they first appeared in Chicago and in Iowa about 1863, and in
1866 they founded their chief farming colony in Brockway,
Minnesota. Here they still preserve their own language and all
their minute local peculiarities. They came to Omaha in 1868,
and in 1873 their present large colony in Joliet, Illinois, was
founded. Their earliest settlement in New York was towards the
end of 1878, and gradually their numbers have increased until
they have churches in Haverstraw and Rockland Lake, where their
language is used. They have also established farm settlements in
Iowa, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, and in additional places
in Minnesota. Their very active immigration began in 1892, and
has been (1990-1910) at the rate of from 6000 to 9000 annually,
but has lately fallen off. The official government statistics
class them along with the Croatians. There are now (1911) in the
United States a little over 120,000 Slovenes; practically all of
them are Catholics, and with no great differences or factions
among them. There is a leaning towards Socialism in the large
mining and manufacturing centres. In Pennsylvania there are
about 30,000; in Ohio, 15,000; in Illinois, 12,000; in Michigan,
8000; in Minnesota, 12,000; in Colorado, 10,000; in Washington,
10,000; in Montana, 5000; and in fact there are Slovenes
reported in almost every state and territory except Georgia.
Their immigration was caused by the poverty of the people at
home, especially as Carniola is a rocky and mountainous district
without much fertility, and neglected even from the times of the
Turkish wars. Latterly the institution of Raffeisen banks,
debt-paying and mutual aid associations introduced among the
people by the Catholic party (Slovenska Ljudska Stranka), has
diminished immigration and enabled them to live more comfortably
at home.
The Slovenes are noted for their adaptability, and have given
many prominent missionary leaders to the Church in the United
States. Among them are Bishop Baraga, Mrak, and Vertin (of
Marquette), Stariha (of Lead), and Trobec (of St. Cloud);
Monsignori Stibil, Buh, and Plut; Abbot Bernard Locnika, O.S.B.;
and many others. There are some 92 Slovenian priests in the
United States, and twenty-five Slovenian churches. Many of their
churches are quite fine, especially st.Joseph's, Joliet,
Illinois; St. Joseph's, Calumet, Michigan; and Sts.Cyril and
Methodius, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. There are also mixed parishes
where the Slovenes are united with other nationalities, usually
with Bohemians, Slovaks, or Germans. There are no exclusively
Slovenian religious communities. At St. John's, Minnesota, there
are six Slovenian Benedictines, and at Rockland Lake, New York,
three Slovenian Franciscans, who are undertaking to establish a
Slovenian and Croatian community. From them much of the
information herein has been obtained. The Franciscan nuns at
Joliet, Illinois, have many Slovenian sisters; at Kansas City,
Kansas, there are several Slovenian sisters engaged in school
work; and there are some Slovenians among the Notre Dame Sisters
of Cleveland, Ohio. Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota,
sent to Austria for Slovenian seminarians to finish their
education here, and also appointed three Slovenian priests are
professors in his diocesan seminary, thus providing a Slovenian-
American clergy for their parishes in his province.
There are several church and benevolent organizations among the
Slovenians in America. The principal ones are: Kranjsko
Slovenska Katoliska Jednota (Krainer Slovenian Catholic Union),
organized in April, 1894, now having 100 councils and a
membership of 12,000; Jugoslovenska Katoliska Jednota (South
Slovenian Catholic Union), organized in Jan., 1901, having 90
councils and 8000 members; besides these there are also
Slovenska Zapadna Zveza (Slovenian Western Union), with 30
councils and about 3000 members, Drustva Sv. Barbara (St.
Barbara Society), with 80 councils, chiefly among miners, and
the semi-socialistic Delvaska Podporna Zveza (Workingmen's
Benevolent Union) with 25 councils and a considerable
membership. There are also Sv. Rafaelova Druzba (St. Raphael's
Society), to assist Slovenian immigrants founded by Father
Kasimir, O.F.M., and the Society of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to
assist Slovenian schools, as well as numerous singing and
gymnastic organizations. The Slovenians publish ten newspapers
in the United States. The oldest is the Catholic weekly
"Amerikanski Slovenec" (American Slovene), established in 1891
at Joliet, and it is the organ of the Krainer Slovenian Catholic
Union. "Glas Naroda" (Voice of the People), established in 1892
in New York City, is a daily paper somewhat Liberal in its
views, but it is the official organ of the South Slavonic
Catholic Union and the St. Barbara Society. "Ave Maria" is a
religious monthly published by the Franciscans of Rockland Lake,
New York. "Glasnik" (The Herald) is a weekly of Calumet,
Michigan; as are "Edinost" (Unity), of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania;
"Clevelandska Amerika", of Cleveland, Ohio; "Narodni Vestnik"
(People's Messenger), of Duluth, Minnesota; and "Slovenski
Narod" (Slovenian People), of Pueblo, Colorado. There are also
two purely Socialistic weeklies in Chicago: "Proletarec"
(Proletarian) and "Glas Svobode" (Voice of Freedom).
ANDREW J. SHIPMAN
Anton Martin Slomsek
Anton Martin Slom?ek
Slom?ek, Anton Martin, Bishop of Lavant, in Maribor, Styria,
Austria, noted Slovenian educator, born 1800; died 24 Sept.,
1862. The dawn of the nineteenth century found the Slovenian
schools in a precarious condition; their number was pitifully
small, and the courses they offered were inadequate and
unsatisfactory. This deplorable state was due to the fact that
the Austrian officials endeavoured to suppress the national
language, and, to compass this end, introduced foreign teachers
thoroughly distasteful to the people, whom in turn they
despised. Moreover, books, magazines, papers, and other
educational influences were lacking, not because they would not
have been gladly welcomed, but because they were forbidden by
the Government in its fear of Panslavism. This situation Bishop
Slom?ek was compelled to face. A man of initiative and
discernment, the changes he wrought in a short time were
wonderful. In the Constitution of 1848, granting national rights
long denied, he found his instrument. Following this measure,
though only after many futile attempts, he received official
sanction to undertake the reform of the schools. The first
fruits of his labours were a series of excellent text-books,
many from his own pen, which proved powerful factors in the
growth and development of religious as well as national
education. The founding of the weekly, "Drobtinice" (Crumbs),
was his next step. Essays and books on a great variety of
subjects, embracing practically every question on which his
countrymen stood in need of enlightenment, were published in
quick succession, and his vigorous and incisive style, well
adapted to the intelligence of his readers, though not lacking
scholarly refinement, made his works exceedingly popular. His
pastorals and sermons constitute a literature of lasting value.
In 1841 he sought to realize a dream of years -- the
establishment of a society for the spread of Catholic
literature. Unfortunately, the movement was branded as
Panslavistic, and failed at the time; but ten years later this
organization was effected, and Druzba sv. Mohora began sending a
few instructive books to Catholic homes. To-day, a million
educational volumes have been distributed among a million and a
half of people.
Although Slom?ek was ardent and active in the interests of his
own race, yet he was admired and loved by great men of other
nations, and his kindness and tact eliminated all bitterness
from the controversies in which he was forced to engage.
Patriotism, the education of his people. their temporal and
spiritual welfare, were his inspiring motives, as the
non-Catholic Makusev remarks: "Education, based on religion and
nationality, was his lofty aim". Humility and childlike
simplicity marked his life. His priests, sincerely devoted to
him, frequently heard him repeat the words: "When I was born, my
mother laid me on a bed of straw, and I desire no better pallet
when I die, asking only to be in the state of grace and worthy
of salvation".
GRAFENANER, Hist. of Slovenian Literature (1862).
P. CYRIL ZUPAN.
Slotanus, John
John Slotanus
(SCHLOTTANUS, VAN DER SLOOTIEN), (JOHN GEFFEN)
Slotanus, John, polemical writer; born at Geffen, Brabant; died
at Cologne, 9 July, 1560. He joined the Dominican order at
Cologne about 1525. For many years he ably defended the Faith
against the heretics by preaching and writing. Later he taught
sacred letters at Cologne, and in 1554 was made a doctor of
theology. About this same time he became prior of his convent at
Cologne, and as such exercised the offices of censor of the
faith and papal inquisitor throughout the Archdiocese of Cologne
and the Rhine country. In the discharge of these responsible
duties Slotanus came into conflict with the learned Justus
Velsius, who in 1556, on account of heretical teachings, was
obliged to leave Cologne. The vehement writings which Velsius
afterwards published against the Cologne theologians moved
Slotanus to write two works in which nearly all the heretical
doctrines of his time are discussed with admirable skill.
Among his various works those most worthy of mention are:
"Disputationum adversus haereticos liber unus" (Cologne, 1558);
"De retinenda fide orthodoxa et catholica adversus haereses et
sectas" (Cologne, 1560); "De barbaris nationibus convertendis ad
Christum" (Cologne, 1559). In the last-named work Slotanus
witnesses to the ardent missionary zeal which fired the
religious men of his time.
ECHARD, Script. Ord. Proed., II, 175; HURTER, Nomenclator;
MEUSER, Zur Geschichte der Koelner Theologen im 16. Jahrh. in
Kath. Zeitschr. fuer Wissenschaft und Kunst, II (Cologne, 1845),
79 sq.; PAULUS, Koelner Dominicanerschriftsteller a.d. 16.
Jahrh. in Katholik II (1897) 238 sq.
CHAS. J. CALLAN.
Sloth
Sloth
One of the seven capital sins. In general it means
disinclination to labour or exertion. As a capital or deadly
vice St. Thomas (II-II:35) calls it sadness in the face of some
spiritual good which one has to achieve (Tristitia de bono
spirituali). Father Rickaby aptly translates its Latin
equivalent acedia (Gr. akedia) by saying that it means the
don't-care feeling. A man apprehends the practice of virtue to
be beset with difficulties and chafes under the restraints
imposed by the service of God. The narrow way stretches wearily
before him and his soul grows sluggish and torpid at the thought
of the painful life journey. The idea of right living inspires
not joy but disgust, because of its laboriousness. This is the
notion commonly obtaining, and in this sense sloth is not a
specific vice according to the teaching of St. Thomas, but
rather a circumstance of all vices. Ordinarily it will not have
the malice of mortal sin unless, of course, we conceive it to be
so utter that because of it one is willing to bid defiance to
some serious obligation. St. Thomas completes his definition of
sloth by saying that it is torpor in the presence of spiritual
good which is Divine good. In other words, a man is then
formally distressed at the prospect of what he must do for God
to bring about or keep intact his friendship with God. In this
sense sloth is directly opposed to charity. It is then a mortal
sin unless the act be lacking in entire advertence or full
consent of the will. The trouble attached to maintenance of the
inhabiting of God by charity arouses tedium in such a person. He
violates, therefore, expressly the first and the greatest of the
commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole
heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and
with thy whole strength." (Mark, xii, 30).
JOSEPH F. DELANY
Slythurst, Thomas
Thomas Slythurst
Slythrust, Thomas, English confessor, born in Berkshire; died in
the Tower of London, 1560. He was B. A. Oxon, 1530; M. A., 1534;
B. D., 1543; and supplicated for the degree of D. D., 1554-5,
but never took it. He was rector of Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks,
from 1545 to 1555, canon of Windsor 1554, rector of Chalfont St.
Giles, Bucks, 1555, and first President of Trinity College,
Oxford. He was deprived of these three preferments in 1559. On
11 Nov., 1556, he was appointed with others by Convocation to
regulate the exercises in theology on the election of Cardinal
Pole to the chancellorship.
WARTON, Life of Sir Thomas Pope (London, 1772), 359; Catholic
Record Society Publications, I (London, 1905-), 118; FOX, Acts
and Monuments, VIII (London, 1843-9), 636.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.
Smalkaldic League
Smalkaldic League
A politico-religious alliance formally concluded on 27 Feb.,
1531, at Smalkalden in Hesse-Nassau, among German Protestant
princes and cities for their mutual defence. The compact was
entered into for six years, and stipulated that any military
attack made upon any one of the confederates on account of
religion or under any other pretext was to be considered as
directed against them all and resisted in common. The parties to
it were: the Landgrave Philip of Hesse; the Elector John of
Saxony and his son John Frederick; the dukes Philip of
Brunswick-Grubenhagen and Otto, Ernest, and Francis of
Brunswick-Luenenburg; Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt; the counts
Gebhard and Albrecht of Mansfeld and the towns of Strasburg,
Ulm, Constance, Reutlingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Biberach, Isny,
Magdeburg, and Bremen. The city of Luebeck joined the league on
3 May, and Bavaria on 24 Oct., 1531. The accession of foreign
powers, notably England and France, was solicited, and the
alliance of the latter nation secured in 1532. The princes of
Saxony and Hesse were appointed military commanders of the
confederation, and its military strength fixed at 10,000
infantry and 2000 cavalry. At a meeting held at Smalkalden in
Dec., 1535, the alliance was renewed for ten years, and the
maintenance of the former military strength decreed, with the
stipulation that it should be doubled in case of emergency. In
April, 1536, Dukes Ulrich of Wuertemberg and Barnim and Philip
of Pomerania, the cities of Frankfort, Augsburg, Hamburg, and
Hanover joined the league with several other new confederates.
An alliance was concluded with Denmark in 1538, while the usual
accession of the German Estates which accepted the Reformation
continued to strengthen the organization. Confident of its
support, the Protestant princes introduced the new religion in
numerous districts, suppressed bishoprics, confiscated church
property, resisted imperial ordinances to the extent of refusing
help against the Turks, and disregarded the decisions of the
Imperial Court of Justice.
In self-defence against the treasonable machinations of the
confederation, a Catholic League was formed in 1538 at Nuremberg
under the leadership of the emperor. Both sides now actively
prepared for an armed conflict, which seemed imminent. But
negotiations carried on at the Diet of Frankfort in 1539
resulted, partly owing to the illness of the Landgrave of Hesse,
in the patching up of a temporary peace. The emperor during this
respite renewed his earnest but fruitless efforts to effect a
religious settlement, while the Smalkaldic confederates
continued their violent proceedings against the Catholics,
particularly in the territory of Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel, where
Duke Henry was unjustly expelled, and the new religion
introduced (1542). It became more and more evident as time went
on that a conflict was unavoidable. When, in 1546, the emperor
adopted stern measures against some of the confederates, the War
of Smalkalden ensued. Although it was mainly a religious
conflict between Catholics and Protestants, the denominational
lines were not sharply drawn. With Pope Paul III, who promised
financial and military assistance, several Protestant princes,
the principal among whom was Duke Marice of Saxony, defended the
imperial and Catholic cause. The beginning of hostilities was
marked nevertheless by the success of the Smalkaldic allies; but
division and irresoluteness soon weakened them and caused their
ruin in Southern Germany, where princes and cities submitted in
rapid succession. The battle of Muehlberg (24 April, 1547)
decided the issue in favour of the emperor in the north. The
Elector John Frederick of Saxony was captured, and shortly after
the Landgrave Philip of Hesse was also forced to submit. The
conditions of peace included the transfer of the electoral
dignity from the former to his cousin Maurice, the reinstatement
of Duke Henry of Wolfenbuettel in his dominions, the restoration
of Bishop Julius von Pflug to his See of Naumburg-Zeitz, and a
promise demanded of the vanquished to recognize and attend the
Council of Trent. The dissolution of the Smalkaldic League
followed; the imperial success was complete, but temporary. A
few years later another conflict broke out and ended with the
triumph of Protestantism.
Winckelmann, Der Schmalkald. Bund (1530-32) u. der Nuernberger
Religionsfriede (Strasburg, 1892); Hasenclever, Die Politik der
Schmalkaldener vor Ausbruch des Schmalkald. Krieges (Marburg,
1903); Berentelg, Der Schmalkald. Krieg in Norddeutschland
(Muenster, 1908); Janssen, Hist. of the German People, tr.
Christie, V (St. Louis, 1903), passim; Pastor, History of the
Popes, tr. Kerr, X (St. Louis, 1910), 166 sqq.
N.A. Weber
Ardo Smaragdus
Ardo Smaragdus
Hagiographer, died at the Benedictine monastery of Aniane,
Herault, in Southern France, March, 843. He entered this
monastery when still a boy and was bought up under the direction
of Abbot St. Benedict of Aniane. On account of his piety and
talents he was ordained and put at the head of the school at his
monastery. In 794 he accompanied his abbot to the Council of
Frankfort and in 814 was made abbot in place of Benedict, who on
the invitation of Louis-le-Debonnaire had taken up his abode at
the imperial Court at Aix-la-Chapelle. Smaragdus was honoured as
a saint in his monastery. He is the author of a life of St.
Benedict of Aniane which he wrote at the request of the monks of
Cornelimuenster near Aix-la-Chapelle, where Abbot Benedict had
died. It was written in 822, and is one of the most reliable
hagiological productions of that period. Mabillon edited it in
his "Acta SS. of the Benedictine Order" (saeculum IV, I,
192-217), whence it was reprinted in P. L., CIII, 353-84.
MICHAEL OTT
James Smith
James Smith
Journalist, b. at Skolland, in the Shetland Isles, about 1790;
d. Jan., 1866. He spent his boyhood at Skolland, a small place
belonging to his mother, who was a member of a branch of the
Bruce family which had settled in Shetland in the sixteenth
century. He studied law in Edinburgh, became a solicitor to the
Supreme Court there, and married a Catholic lady (a cousin of
Bishop Macdonell of the Glengarry clan), the result being his
own conversion to Catholicism. Naturally hampered in his career,
at that period, by his profession of Catholicism, he turned his
attention to literature, and became the pioneer of Catholic
journalism in Scotland. In 1832 he originated and edited the
"Edinburgh Catholic Magazine", which appeared somewhat
intermittently in Scotland until April, 1838, at which date Mr.
Smith went to reside in London, and the word "Edinburgh" was
dropped from the title of the magazine, the publication of which
was continued for some years in London. Mr. Smith, on settling
in London, inaugurated the "Catholic Directory" for England, in
succession to the old "Laity's Directory", and edited it for
many years; and he was also for a short time editor of the
"Dublin Review", in 1837. Possessed of considerable gifts both
as a speaker and as a writer, he was always ready to put them at
the service of the Catholic cause; and during the years of
agitation immediately preceding Catholic Emancipation, as well
as at a later period, he was one of the most active champions of
the Church in England and Scotland. He made a brilliant defence
in public of Catholic doctrine when it was violently attacked by
certain prominent members of the Established Church of Scotland,
and published in this connexion, in 1831, his "Dialogues on the
Catholic and Protestant Rules of Faith", between a member of the
Protestant Reformation Society and a Catholic layman. He also
edited (1838) Challoner's abridgment of Gother's "Papist
Misrepresented and Represented", with copious notes. Mr. Smith
was father of the Most Rev. William Smith, second Archbishop of
St. Andrews and Edinburgh in the restored hierarchy of Scotland,
and a distinguished Biblical scholar.
GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., S.V.; Catholic Directory for
Scotland (1893), 264.
D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR
Richard Smith
Richard Smith
Bishop of Chalcedon, second Vicar Apostolic of England; b. at
Hanworth, Lincolnshire, Nov., 1568 (not 1566 as commonly
stated); d. at Paris, 18 March, 1655. He was educated at Trinity
College, Oxford, where he became a Catholic. He was admitted to
the English College, Rome, in 1586, studied under Bellarmine,
and was ordained priest 7 May 1592. In Feb., 1593, he arrived at
Valladolid, where he took the degree of Doctor of Theology, and
taught philosophy at the English College till 1598, when he went
to Seville as a professor of controversies. In 1603 he went on
the English mission, where he made his mark as a missioner.
Chosen to represent the case of the secular clergy in the
archpriest controversy, he went to Rome, where he opposed
Persons, who said of him: "I never dealt with any man in my life
more heady and resolute in his opinions". In 1613 he became
superior of the small body of English secular priests at Arras
College, Paris, who devoted themselves to controversial work. In
1625 he was elected to succeed Dr. Bishop as vicar Apostolic,
but the date usually assigned for his consecration as Bishop of
Chalcedon (12 Jan., 1625) must be wrong, as he was not elected
till 2 Jan. He arrived in England in April, of the same year,
residing in Lord Montagu's house at Turvey, Bedfordshire. As
vicar Apostolic he came into conflict with the regulars,
claiming the rights of an ordinary, but Urban VIII decided (16
Dec., 1627) that he was not an ordinary. In 1628 the Government
issued a proclamation for his arrest, and in 1631 he withdrew to
Paris, where he lived with Richelieu till the cardinal's death
in 1642; then he retired to the convent of the English
Augustinian nuns, where he died.
He wrote: "An answer to T. Bel's late Challenge" (1605); "The
Prudentiall Ballance of Religion", (1609); "Vita Dominae
Magdalenae Montis-Acuti" i.e., Viscountess Montagu (1609); "De
auctore et essentia Protestanticae Religionis" (1619), English
translation, 1621; "Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum et
Protestantium" (1622), tr. (1631); "Of the distinction of
fundamental and not fundamental points of faith" (1645); "Monita
quaedam utilia pro Sacerdotibus, Seminaristis, Missionariis
Angliae" (1647); "A Treatise of the best kinde of Confessors"
(1651); "Of the all-sufficient Eternal Proposer of Matters of
Faith" (1653); "Florum Historiae Ecclesiasticae gentis Anglorum
libri septem" (1654). Many unpublished documents relating to his
troubled episcopate (an impartial history of which yet remains
to be written) are preserved in the Westminster Diocesan
Archives.
DODD, Church History, III (Brussels vere Wolverhampton,
1737-1742) the account from which most subsequent biographies
were derived. See also Tierney's edition of Dodd for further
documents; BERINGTON, Memoirs of Panzani (London, 1793);
Calendar State Papers: Dom., 1625-1631; BUTLER, Historical
Memoirs of English Catholics (London, 1819); SERGEANT, Account
of the English Chapter (London, 1853); FULLERTON, Life of Luisa
de Carvajal (London, 1873); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J., VI
(London, 1880); BRADY, Episcopal Succession, III (Rome, 1877), a
confused and self-contradictory account with some new facts;
ALGER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.;
CEDOZ, Couvent de Religieuses Anglaises a Paris (Paris, 1891);
Third Douay Diary, C.R.S. Publications, X (London, 1911).
EDWIN BURTON
Richard Smith
Richard Smith
Born in Worcestershire, 1500; died at Douai, 9 July, 1563. He
was educated at Merton College, Oxford; and, having taken his
M.A. degree in 1530, he became registrar of the university in
1532. In 1536 Henry VIII appointed him first Regius Professor of
divinity, and he took his doctorate in that subject on 10 July
in the same year. He subsequently became master of Whittington
College, London; rector of St. Dunstan's- in-the-East; rector of
Cuxham, Oxfordshire; principal of St. Alban's Hall; and divinity
reader at Magdalen College. Under Edward VI he is said by his
opponents to have abjured the pope's authority at St. Paul's
Cross (15 May, 1547) and at Oxford, but the accounts of the
proceedings are obscure and unreliable. If he yielded at all, he
soon recovered and accordingly suffered the loss of his
professorship, being succeeded by Peter Martyr, with whom he
held a public disputation in 1549. Shortly afterwards he was
arrested, but was soon liberated. Going to Louvain, he became
professor of divinity there. During Mary's Catholic restoration
he regained most of his preferments, and was made royal chaplain
and canon of Christ Church. He took a prominent part in the
proceedings against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. He again lost
all his benefices at the change of religion under Elizabeth, and
after a short imprisonment in Parker's house he escaped to
Douai, where he was appointed by Philip II dean of St. Peter's
church. There is no foundation for the slanderous story spread
by the Reformers to account for his deprivation of his Oxford
professorship. When Douai University was founded on 5 Oct.,
1562, he was installed as chancellor and professor of theology,
but only lived a few months to fill these offices. He wrote many
works, the chief of which are: "Assertion and Defence of the
Sacrament of the Altar" (1546); "Defence of the Sacrifice of the
Mass" (1547); "Defensio coelibatus sacerdotum" (1550); "Diatriba
de hominis justificatione" (1550); "Buckler of the Catholic
Faith" (1555-56); "De Missae Sacrificio" (1562); and several
refutations of Calvin, Melanchthon, Jewell, and Beza, all
published in 1562.
Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, IV (Oxford, 1891); Pits, De
illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); Dodd, Church
History, II (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); Gardiner,
Letters and Papers of Henry VIII; Cooper, Dict. Nat. Biog., s.
v.
Edwin Burton
Thomas Kilby Smith
Thomas Kilby Smith
Born at Boston, Mass., 23 Sept., 1820; died at New York, 14
Dec., 1887; eldest son of Captain George Smith and Eliza Bicker
Walter. Both his paternal and maternal forefathers were active
and prominent in the professional life and in the government of
New England. His parents moved to Cincinnati in his early
childhood, where he was educated in a military school under O.
M. Mitchel, the astronomer, and studied law in the office of
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. In 1853 he was appointed special
agent in the Post Office Department at Washington, and later
marshal for the Southern District of Ohio and deputy clerk of
Hamilton County. He entered the Union Army, 9 September, 1861,
as lieutenant-colonel, and was conspicuous in the Battle of
Shiloh, 6 and 7 April, 1862, assuming command of Stuart's
Brigade, Sherman's Division, during the second day. As commander
of brigade in the 15th and 17th Army Corps, he participated in
all the campaigns of the Army of the Tennessee, being also for
some months on staff duty with General Grant.
Commissioned Brigadier-General of Volunteers, 11 August, 1863,
he was assigned on 7 March, 1864, to the command of the detached
division of the 17th Army Corps and rendered distinguished
service during the Red River Expedition, protecting Admiral
Porter's fleet after the disaster of the main army. After the
fall of Mobile, he assumed the command of the Department of
Southern Alabama and Florida, and then of the Post and District
of Maine. He was brevetted Major-General for gallant and
meritorious service. In 1866 President Johnson appointed him
United States Consul at Panama. After the war he removed to
Torresdale, Philadelphia. At the time of his death he was
engaged in journalism in New York. On 2 May, 1848, he married
Elizabeth Budd, daughter of Dr. William Budd McCullough and
Arabella Sanders Piatt, of Cincinnati, Ohio. She was a gifted
and devout woman, and through her influence and that of the
venerable archbishop Purcell he became a Catholic some years
before his death. He was remarkable for his facility of
expression, distinguished personal appearance, and courtly
bearing. He left five sons and three daughters.
SMITH, Life and Letters of Thomas Kilby Smith (New York, 1898).
WALTER GEORGE SMITH
Smyrna
Smyrna
LATIN ARCHDIOCESE OF SMYRNA (SMYRNENSIS), in Asia Minor.
The city of Smyrna rises like an amphitheatre on the gulf which
bears its name. It is the capital of the vilayet of Aidin and
the starting-point of several railways; it has a population of
at least 300,000, of whom 150,000 are Greeks. There are also
numerous Jews and Armenians and almost 10,000 European
Catholics. It was founded more than 1000 years B.C. by colonists
from Lesbos who had expelled the Leleges, at a place now called
Bournabat, about an hour's distance from the present Smyrna.
Shortly before 688 B.C. it was captured by the Ionians, under
whose rule it became a very rich and powerful city (Herodotus,
I, 150). About 580 B.C. it was destroyed by Alyattes, King of
Lydia. Nearly 300 years afterwards Antigonus (323-301 B.C.), and
then Lysimachus, undertook to rebuild it on its present site.
Subsequently comprised in the Kingdom of Pergamus, it was ceded
in 133 B.C. to the Romans. These built there a judiciary
conventus and a mint. Smyrna had a celebrated school of
rhetoric, was one of the cities which had the title of
metropolis, and in which the concilium festivum of Asia was
celebrated. Demolished by an earthquake in A.D. 178 and 180, it
was rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. In 673 it was captured by a
fleet of Arab Mussulmans. Under the inspiration of Clement VI
the Latins captured it from the Mussulmans in 1344 and held it
until 1402, when Tamerlane destroyed it after slaying the
inhabitants. In 1424 the Turks captured it and, save for a brief
occupation by the Venetians in 1472, it has since belonged to
them.
Christianity was preached to the inhabitants at an early date.
As early as the year 93, there existed a Christian community
directed by a bishop for whom St. John in the Apocalypse (i, II;
ii, 8-11) has only words of praise. There are extant two letters
written early in the second century from Troas by St. Ignatius
of Antioch to those of Smyrna and to Polycarp, their bishop.
Through these letters and those of the Christians of Smyrna to
the city of Philomelium, we know of two ladies of high rank who
belonged to the Church of Smyrna. There were other Christians in
the vicinity of the city and dependent on it to whom St.
Polycarp wrote letters (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", V, xxiv). When
Polycarp was martyred (23 February), the Church of Smyrna sent
an encyclical concerning his death to the Church of Philomelium
and others. The "Vita Polycarpi" attributed to St. Pionius, a
priest of Smyrna martyred in 250, contains a list of the first
bishops: Strataes; Bucolus; Polycarp; Papirius; Camerius;
Eudaemon (250), who apostatized during the persecution of
Decius; Thraseas of Eumenia, martyr, who was buried at Smyrna.
Noctos, a Modalist heretic of the second century, was a native
of the city as were also Sts. Pothinus and Irenaeus of Lyons.
Mention should also be made of another martyr, St. Dioscorides,
venerated on 21 May. Among the Greek bishops, a list of whom
appears in Le Quien, (Oriens Christ., I, 737-46), was
Metrophanes, the great opponent of Photius, who laboured in the
revision of the "Octoekos", a Greek liturgical book.
The Latin See of Smyrna was created by Clement VI in 1346 and
had an uninterrupted succession of titulars until the
seventeenth century. This was the beginning of the Vicariate
Apostolic of Asia Minor, or of Smyrna, of vast extent. In 1818
Pius VII established the Archdiocese of Smyrna, at the same time
retaining the vicariate Apostolic, the jurisdiction of which was
wider. Its limits were those of the vicariates Apostolic of
Mesopotamia, Syria, and Constantinople. The archdiocese had
17,000 Latin Catholics, some Greek Melchites, called Alepi, and
Armenians under special organization. There are: 19 secular
priests; 55 regulars; 8 parishes, of which 4 are in Smyrna; 14
churches with resident priests and 12 without priests; 25
primary schools with 2500 pupils, 8 colleges or academies with
800 pupils; 2 hospitals; and 4 orphanages. The religious men in
the archdiocese or the vicariate Apostolic are Franciscans,
Capuchins, Lazarists, Dominicans, Salesians of Don Bosco,
Assumptionists (at Koniah), Brothers of the Christian Schools,
and Marist Brothers (at Metellin). Religious communities of
women are the Carmelites, Sisters of Charity (13 houses with
more than 100 sisters), Sisters of Sion, Dominicans of Ivree,
Sisters of St. Joseph, and Oblates of the Assumption.
S. VAILHE
Snorri Sturluson
Snorri Sturluson
Historian, born at Hvammr, 1178; died 1241. Snorri, who was the
son of Sturla Thortsson (d. 1182), was the most important
Icelandic historian of the Middle Ages. In him were united the
experienced statesman and the many-sided scholar. As a child he
went to the school of Saemund the Wise at Oddi, of which, at
that time, Saemund's grandson Jan Loptsson was the head. On his
father's side Jan was related to the most distinguished families
of Iceland, while by his mother Thora he was connected with the
royal family of Norway. Under this skillful teacher Snorri was
thoroughly trained in many branches of knowledge, but he learned
especially the old northern belief in the gods, the saga
concerning Odin, and Scandinavian history. By a rich alliance
Snorri obtained the money to take a leading part in politics,
but his political course brought him many dangerous enemies,
among whom King Haakon of Norway was the most powerful, and he
was finally murdered at the king's instigation. Snorri's
importance rests on his literary works of which "Heimskringla"
(the world) is the most important, since it is the chief
authority for the early history of Iceland and Scandinavia.
However, it does not contain reliable statements until the
history, which extends to 1177, reaches a late period, while the
descriptions of the primitive era are largely vague narrations
of sagas. The Sturlunga-Saga, which shows more of the local
colouring of Iceland, was probably only partly the work of
Snorri. On the other hand he is probably the author of the
Younger Edda called "Snorra-Edda", which was intended as a
textbook of the art of poetry. Its first part, "Gylfaginning"
relates the mythology of the North in an interesting, pictorial
manner, and is a compilation of the songs of the early scalds,
the songs of the common people, sagas, and probably his own
poetic ideas.
PIUS WITTMAN
Ven. Peter Snow
Ven. Peter Snow
English martyr, suffered at York, 15 June, 1598. He was born at
or near Ripon and arrived at the English College, Reims, 17
April, 1589, receiving the first tonsure and minor orders 18
August, 1590, the subdiaconate at Laon on 22 September, and the
diaconate and priesthood at Soissons on 30 and 31 March, 1591.
He left for England on the following 15 May. He was arrested
about 1 May, 1598, when on his way to York with Venerable Ralph
Grimston of Nidd. Both were shortly after condemned, Snow of
treason as being a priest and Grimston of felony, for having
aided and assisted him, and, it is said, having attempted to
prevent his apprehension.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Sobaipura Indians
Sobaipura Indians
Once an important tribe of the Piman branch of the great
Shoshonean linguistic stock, occupying the territory of the
Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, in southeastern Arizona and
adjacent portion of Sonora, Mexico. In dialect and general
custom they seem to have closely resembled the Papago, by whom
and by the closely cognate Pima most of them were finally
absorbed. Their principle centre was Bac or Vaaki, later San
Xavier Del Bac, on Santa Cruz River, nine miles south from the
present Tucson, Arizona. Here they were visited in 1692 by the
pioneer Jesuit explorer of the southwest, Father Eusebio Kino,
who in 1699 began the church from which the mission took its
name. Other Jesuit mission foundations in the same tribe were
(Santa Maria de) Suamca, just inside the Sonora line,
established also by Kino about the same time, and San Miguel de
Guevavi, founded in 1732 near the present Nogales, Arizona, all
three missions being upon the Santa Cruz River. There were also
several visiting stations. The missions shared the misfortunes
attending those of the Pima and Papago, but continued to exist
until a few years after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767.
Before the end of the century the tribe itself had disappeared,
and in later years San Xavier appears as a Papago settlement.
According to tradition the tribe was destroyed about the year
1790 by the attacks of the wild Apache, by whom a part were
carried off, while others were forced to incorporate with the
Papago and Pima (q.v.).
JAMES MOONEY
John Sobieski
John Sobieski
Born at Olesko in 1629; died at Wilanow, 1696; son of James,
Castellan of Cracow and descended by his mother from the heroic
Zolkiewski, who died in battle at Cecora. His elder brother Mark
was his companion in arms from the time of the great Cossack
rebellion (1648), and fought at Zbaraz, Beresteczko, and lastly
at Batoh where, after being taken prisoner, he was murdered by
the Tatars. John, the last of all the family, accompanied
Czarniecki in the expedition to Denmark; then, under George
Lubomirski, he fought the Muscovites at Cudnow. Lubomirski
revolting, he remained faithful to the king (John Casimir),
became successively Field Hetman, Grand Marshal, and -- after
Revera Potocki's death -- Grand Hetman or Commander-in-chief.
His first exploit as Hetman was in Podhajce, where, besieged by
an army of Cossacks and Tatars, he at his own expense raised
8000 men and stored the place with wheat, baffling the foe so
completely that they retired with great loss. When, in 1672,
under Michael Wisniowiecki's reign, the Turks seized Kamieniec,
Sobieski beat them again and again, till at the crowning victory
of Chocim they lost 20,000 men and a great many guns. This gave
Poland breathing space, and Sobieski became a national hero, so
that, King Michael dying at that time, he was unanimously
elected king in 1674. Before his coronation he was forced to
drive back the Turkish hordes, that had once more invaded the
country; he beat them at Lemberg in 1675, arriving in time to
raise siege of Trembowla, and to save Chrzanowski and his heroic
wife, its defenders. Scarcely crowned, he hastened to fight in
the Ruthenian provinces. Having too few soldiers (20,000) to
attack the Turks, who were ten to one, he wore them out,
entrenching himself at Zurawno, letting the enemy hem him in for
a fortnight, extricating himself with marvellous skill and
courage, and finally regaining by treaty a good part of the
Ukraine.
For some time there was peace: the Turks had learned to dread
the "Unvanquished Northern Lion", and Poland, too was exhausted.
But soon the Sultan turned his arms against Austria. Passing
through Hungary, a great part which had for one hundred and
fifty years been in Turkish hands, and enormous army, reckoned
at from 210,000 to 300,000 men (the latter figures are
Sobieski's) marched forward. The Emperor Leopold fled from
Vienna, and begged Sobieski's aid, which the papal nuncio also
implored. Though dissuaded by Louis XIV, whose policy was always
hostile to Austria, Sobieski hesitated not a instant. Meanwhile
(July, 1683) the Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha, had arrived before
Vienna, and laid siege to the city, defended by the valiant
Imperial General Count Stahremberg, with a garrison of only
15,000 men, exposed to the horrors of disease and fire, as well
as to hostile attacks. Sobieski started to the rescue in August,
taking his son James with him; passing by Our Lady's sanctuary
at Czefistochowa, the troops prayed for a blessing on their
arms; and in the beginning of September, having crossed the
Danube and joined forces with the German armies under John
George, Elector of Saxony, and Prince Charles of Lorraine, they
approached Vienna. On 11 Sept., Sobieski was on the heights of
Kahlenberg, near the city, and the next day he gave battle in
the plain below, with an army of not more than 76,000 men, the
German forming the left wing and the Pole under Hetmans
Jahonowski and Sieniawski, with General Katski in command of the
artillery, forming the right. The hussars charged with their
usual impetuosity, but the dense masses of the foe were
impenetrable. Their retreat was taken for flight by the Turks,
who rushed forward in pursuit; the hussars turned upon them with
reinforcements and charged again, when their shouts made known
that the "Northern Lion" was on the field and the Turks fled,
panic-stricken, with Sobieski's horsemen still in pursuit. Still
the battle raged for a time along all the line; both sides
fought bravely, and the king was everywhere commanding,
fighting, encouraging his men and urging them forward. He was
the first to storm the camp: Kara Mustapha had escaped with his
life, but he received the bow-string in Belgrade some months
later. The Turks were routed, Vienna and Christendom saved, and
the news sent to the pope and along with the Standard of the
Prophet, taken by Sobieski, who himself had heard Mass in the
morning.
Prostrate with outstretched arms, he declared that it was God's
cause he was fighting for, and ascribed the victory (Veni, vidi,
Deus vicit -- his letter to Innocent XI) to Him alone. Next day
he entered Vienna, acclaimed by the people as their saviour.
Leopold, displeased that the Polish king should have all the
glory, condescended to visit and thank him, but treated his son
James and the Polish hetmans with extreme and haughty coldness.
Sobieski, though deeply offended, pursued the Turks into
Hungary, attacked and took Ostrzyhom after the a second battle,
and returned to winter in Poland, with immense spoils taken in
the Turkish camp. These and the glory shed upon the nation were
all the immediate advantages of the great victory. The Ottoman
danger had vanished forever. The war still went on: step by step
the foe was driven back, and sixteen years later Kamieniec and
the whole of Podolia were restored to Poland. But Sobieski did
not live to see this triumph. In vain had he again and again
attempted to retake Kamieniec, and even had built a stronghold
to destroy its strategic value; this fortress enabled the Tatars
to raid the Ruthenian provinces upon several occasions, even to
the gates of Lemberg. He was also forced by treaty to give up
Kieff to Russia in 1686; nor did he succeed in securing the
crown for his son James. His last days were spent in the bosom
of his family, at his castle of Wilanow, where he died in 1696,
broken down by political strife as much as by illness. His wife,
a Frenchwoman, the widow of John Zamoyski, Marie-Casimire,
though not worthy of so great a hero, was tenderly beloved by
him, as his letters show: she influenced him greatly and not
always wisely. His family is now extinct. Charles Edward, the
Young Pretender, was his great-grandson -- his son James'
daughter, Clementine, having married James Stuart in 1719.
S. TARNOWSKI
Socialism
Socialism
A system of social and economic organization that would
substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources
of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate
under the control of the secular governing authority the chief
activities of human life. The term is often used vaguely to
indicate any increase of collective control over individual
action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule
of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the
term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and
even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become
so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of
private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of
all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic
inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may
be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance
to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic
changes in the social structure as would banish poverty.
Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. It is also a
philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human
activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern
Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building,
but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the
existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable.
The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced
by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a
comparatively small section of the community, have been the
cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the
Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what
Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to
glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its
philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider
how far these may be, and actually have proved to be,
incompatible with Christian thought and life. The first
requirement is to understand the origin and growth of the
movement.
It has been customary among writers of the Socialist movement to
begin with references to Utopian theories of the classical and
Renaissance periods, to Plato's "Republic", Plutarch's "Life of
Lycurgus", More's "Utopia", Campanella's "City of the Sun",
Hall's "Mundus alter et idem", and the like. Thence the line of
thought is traced through the French writers of the eighteenth
century, Meslier, Monterquieu, d'Argenson, Morelly, Rousseau,
Mably, till, with Linguet and Necker, the eve of the Revolution
is reached. In a sense, the modern movement has its roots in the
ideas of these creators of ideal commonwealths. Yet there is a
gulf fixed between the modern Socialists and the older Utopists.
Their schemes were mainly directed towards the establishment of
Communism, or rather, Communism was the idea that gave life to
their fancied states (see COMMUNISM). But the Collectivist idea,
which is the economic basis of modern Socialism (See
COLLECTIVISM), really emerges only with "Gracchus" Babeuf and
his paper, "The tribune of the People", in 1794. In the
manifesto issued by him and his fellow-conspirators, "Les
Egaux", is to be found a clear vision of the collective
organization of society, such as would be largely accepted by
most modern Socialists. Babeuf was guillotined by the Directory,
and his party suppressed. Meanwhile, in 1793, Godwin in England
had published his "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice", a work
which, though inculcating Anarchist-Communism (see ANARCHY)
rather than Collectivism, had much influence on Robert Owen and
the school of Determinist Socialists who succeeded him. But a
small group of English writers in the early years of the
nineteenth century had really more to do with the development of
Socialist thought than had either Owen's attempts to found ideal
communities, at New Lanark and elsewhere, or the contemporary
theories and practice of Saint-Simon and Fourier in France.
These English writers, the earliest of whom, Dr. Charles Hall,
first put forward that idea of a dominant industrial and social
"system", which is the pervading conception of modern Socialism,
worked out the various basic principles of Socialism, which Marx
afterwards appropriated and combined. Robert Thompson, Ogilvie,
Hodgkin, Gray, above all William Carpenter, elaborated the
theories of "surplus value", of "production for profit", of
"class-war", of the ever-increasing exploitation of the poor by
the rich, which are the stuff of Marx's "Das Kapital", that "old
clothes-shop of ideas culled from Berlin, Paris, and London".
For indeed, this famous work is really nothing more than a
dexterous combination of Hegelian Evolutionism, of French
Revolutionism, and of the economic theories elaborated by
Ricardo, on the one hand, and this group of English theorists on
the other. Yet the services of Karl Marx and of his friend and
brother-Hebrew, Friedrich Engels, to the cause of Socialism must
not be underrated. These two writers came upon the scene just
when the Socialist movement was at its lowest ebb. In England
the work of Robert Owen had been overlaid by the Chartist
movement and its apparent failure, while the writings of the
economists mentioned above had had but little immediate
influence. In France the Saint-Simonians and the Fourierists had
disgusted everyone by the moral collapse of their systems. In
Germany Lassalle had so far devoted his brilliant energies
merely to Republicanism and philosophy. But in 1848 Marx and
Engels published the "Communist Manifesto", and, mere rhetoric
as it was, this document was the beginning of modern "scientific
Socialism". The influence of Proudhon and of the Revolutionary
spirit of the times pervades the whole manifesto: the economic
analysis of society was to be grafted on later. But already
there appear the ideas of "the materialistic conception of
history", of "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat", and of
"class-war".
After 1848, in his exile in London, Marx studied, and wrote, and
organized with two results: first, the foundation of "The
International Workingmen's Association", in 1864; second, the
publication of the first volume of "Das Kapital", in 1867. It is
not easy to judge which has had the more lasting effect upon the
Socialist movement. "The International" gave to the movement its
world-wide character; "Das Kapital" elaborated and systematized
the philosophic and economic doctrine which is still the creed
of the immense majority of Socialists. "Proletarians of all
lands, unite!" the sentence with which the Communist Manifesto
of 1848 concludes, became a reality with the foundation of the
International. For the first time since the disruption of
Christendom an organization took shape which had for its object
the union of the major portion of all nations upon a common
basis. It was not so widely supported as both its upholders
believed and the frightened moneyed interests imagined. Nor had
this first organization any promise of stability. From the
outset the influence of Marx steadily grew, but it was
confronted by the opposition of Bakunin and the Anarchist
school. By 1876 the International was even formally at an end.
But it had done its work: the organized working classes of all
Europe had realized the international nature both of their own
grievances and of capitalism, and when, in 1889, the first
International Congress of Socialist and Trade-Union delegates
met at Paris, a "New International" came into being which exists
with unimpaired or, rather, with enhanced energy to the present
day. Since that first meeting seven others have been held at
intervals of three or four years, at which there has been a
steady growth in the number of delegates present, the variety of
nationalities represented, and the extent of the Socialistic
influence over its deliberations.
In 1900, an International Socialist Bureau was established at
Brussels, with the purpose of Solidifying and strengthening the
international character of the movement. Since 1904, an
Inter-Parliamentary Socialist Committee has given further
support to the work of the bureau. To-day the international
nature of the Socialistic movement is an axiom both within and
without its ranks; an axiom that must not be forgotten in the
estimation both of the strength and of the trend of the
movement. To the International, then, modern Socialism owes much
of its present power. To "Das Kapital" it owes such intellectual
coherence as it still possesses. The success of this book was
immediate and considerable. It has been translated into many
languages, epitomized by many hands, criticized, discussed, and
eulogized. Thousands who would style themselves Marxians and
would refer to "Das Kapital" as "The Bible of Socialism", and
the irrefragable basis of their creed, have very probably never
seen the original work, nor have even read it in translation.
Marx himself published only the first volume; the second was
published under Engels' editorship in 1885, two years after the
death of Marx; a third was elaborated by Engels from Marx's
notes in 1895; a fourth was projected but never accomplished.
But the influence of this torso has been immense. With
consummate skill Marx gathered together and worked up the ideas
and evidence that had originated with others, or were the
floating notions of the movement; with the result that the new
international organization had ready to hand a body of doctrine
to promulgate, the various national Socialist parties a common
theory and programme for which to work. And promulgated it was,
with a devotion and at times a childlike faith that had no
slight resemblance to religious propaganda. It has been severely
and destructively criticized by economists of many schools, many
of its leading doctrines have been explicitly abandoned by the
Socialist leaders in different countries, some are now hardly
defended even by those leaders who label themselves "Marxian".
Yet the influence of the book persists. The main doctrines of
Marxism are still the stuff of popular Socialist belief in all
countries, are still put forward in scarcely modified form in
the copious literature produced for popular consumption, are
still enunciated or implied in popular addresses even by some of
the very leaders who have abandoned them in serious controversy.
In spite of the growth of Revisionism in Germany, of Syndicalism
in France, and of Fabian Expertism in England, it is still
accurate to maintain that the vast majority of Socialists, the
rank and file of the movement in all countries, are adherents of
the Marxian doctrine, with all its materialistic philosophy, its
evolutionary immorality, its disruptive political and social
analysis, its class-conscious economics.
In Socialism, to-day, as in most departments of human thought,
the leading writers display a marked shyness of fundamental
analysis: "The domain of Socialist thought", says Lagardelle,
has become "an intellectual desert." Its protagonists are
largely occupied, either in elaborating schemes of social
reform, which not infrequently present no exclusively socialist
characteristics, or else in apologizing for and disavowing
inconvenient applications by earlier leaders, of socialist
philosophy to the domain of religion and ethics. Nevertheless,
in so far as the International movement remains definitely
Socialist at all, the formulae of its propaganda and the creed
of its popular adherents are predominantly the reflection of
those put forward in "Das Kapital" in 1867. Moreover, during all
this period of growth of the modern Socialist movement, two
other parallel movements in all countries have at once
supplemented and counterpoised it. These are trade-unionism and
co-operation. There is no inherent reason why either of these
movements should lead towards Socialism: properly conducted and
developed, both should render unnecessary anything that can
correctly be styled "Socialism". But, as a matter of fact, both
these excellent movements, owing to unwise opposition by the
dominant capitalism, on the one hand, and indifference in the
Churches on the other, are menaced by Socialism, and may
eventually be captured by the more intelligent and energetic
Socialists and turned to serve the ends of Socialism. The
training in mutual aid and interdependence, as well as in
self-government and business habits, which the leaders of the
wage-earners have received in both trade-unionism and the
co-operative movements, while it might be of incalculable
benefit in the formation of the needed Christian democracy, has
so far been effective largely in demonstrating the power that is
given by organization and numbers. And the leaders of Socialism
have not been slow to emphasize the lesson and to extend the
argument, with sufficient plausibility, towards state monopoly
and the absolutism of the majority. The logic of their argument
has, it is true, been challenged, in recent years, in Europe by
the rise of the great Catholic trade-union and co-operative
organizations. But in English-speaking nations this is yet to
come, and both co-operation and trade-unionism are allowed to
drift into the grip of the Socialist movement, with the result
that what might become a most effective alternative for
Collectivism remains to-day its nursery and its support.
Parallel with the International movement has run the local
propaganda in various countries, in each of which the movement
has taken its colour from the national characteristics; a
process which has continued, until to-day it is sometimes
difficult to realize that the different bodies who are
represented in the International Congresses form part of the
same agitation. In Germany, the fatherland of dogmatic
Socialism, the movement first took shape in 1862. In that year
Ferdinand Lassalle, the brilliant and wealthy young Jewish
lawyer, delivered a lecture to an artisans' association at
Berlin. Lassalle was fined by the authorities for his temerity,
but "The Working Men's Programme", as the lecture was styled,
resulted in The Universal German Working Men's Association,
which was founded at Leipzig under his influence the following
year. Lassalle commenced a stormy progress throughout Germany,
lecturing, organizing, writing. The movement did not grow at
first with the rapidity he had expected, and he himself was
killed in a duel in 1864. But his tragic death aroused interest,
and The Working Men's Association grew steadily till, in 1869,
reinforced by the adhesion of the various organizations which
had grown out of Marx's propaganda, it became, at Eisenach, the
Socialist Democratic Working Men's Party. Liebknecht, Bebel, and
Singer, all Marxians, were its chief leaders. The two former
were imprisoned for treason in 1870; but in 1874 ten members of
the party, including the two leaders, were returned to the
Reichstag by 450,000 votes. The Government attempted repression,
with the usual result of consolidating and strengthening the
movement. In 1875 was held the celebrated congress at Gotha, at
which was drawn up the programme that formed the basis of the
party. Three years later an attempt upon the emperor's life was
made the excuse for renewed repression. But it was in vain. In
spite of alternate persecution and essays in state Socialism, on
the part of Bismarck, the power in 1890 and since then the party
has grown rapidly, and is now the strongest political body in
Germany. In 18909 Edward Bernstein, who had come under the
influence of the Fabians in England since 1888, started the
"Revisionist" movement, which, while attempting to concentrate
the energies of the party more definitely upon specific reforms
and "revising" to extinction many of the most cherished
doctrines of Marxism, has yet been subordinated to the practical
exigencies of politics. To all appearance the Socialist Party is
stronger to-day than ever. The elections of 1907 brought out
3,258,968 votes in its favour; those of January, 1912, gave it
110 seats out of a total of 307 in the Reichstag -- a gain of
more than 100 per cent over its last previous representation (53
seats). The Marxian "Erfurt Programme", adopted in 1891, is
still the official creed of the Party. But the "Revisionist"
policy is obviously gaining ground and, if the Stuttgart
Congress of 1907 be any indication, is rapidly transforming the
revolutionary Marxist party into an opportunist body devoted to
specific social reforms.
In France the progress of Socialism has been upon different
lines. After the collapse of Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, came
the agitation of Louis Blanc in 1848, with his doctrine of "The
Right to Work". But this was side-tracked by the triumphant
politicians into the scandalous "National Workshops", which were
probably deliberately established on wrong lines in order to
bring ridicule upon the agitation. Blanc was driven into exile,
and French Socialism lay dormant till the ruin of Imperialism in
1870 and the outbreak of the Commune in 1871. This rising was
suppressed with a ferocity that far surpassed the wildest
excesses of the Communards; 20,000 men are said to have been
shot in cold blood, many of whom were certainly innocent, while
not a few were thrown alive in the common burial pits. But this
savagery, though it temporarily quelled the revolution, did
nothing to obviate the Socialist movement. At first many of the
scattered leaders declared for Anarchism, but soon most of them
abandoned it as impracticable and threw their energies into the
propagation of Marxian Socialism. In 1879 the amnesty permitted
Jules Guesde, Brousse, Malon, and other leaders to return. In
1881, after the Anarchist-Communist group under Kropotkin and
Reclus had seceded, two parties came into existence, the
opportunist Alliance Socialiste Republicaine, and the Marxian
Parti Ouvrier Socialiste Revolutionaire de France. But these
parties soon split up in others. Guesde led, and still leads,
the Irreconcilables; Jaures and Millerand have been the leaders
of the Parliamentarians; Brousse, Blanqui, and others have
formed their several communistic groups. In 1906, however,
largely owing to the influence of Jaures, the less extreme
parties united again to form Le Parti Socialiste Unifie. This
body is but loosely formed of various irreconcilable groups and
includes Anarchists like Herve, Marxists like Guesde,
Syndicalists like Lagardelle, Opportunists like Millerand, all
of whom Jaures endeavours, with but slight success, to maintain
in harmony. For right across the Marxian doctrinairianism and
the opportunism of the parliamentary group has driven the recent
Revolutionary Syndicalist movement. This, which is really
Anarchist-Communism working through trade-unionism, is a
movement distrustful of parliamentary systems, favourable to
violence, tending towards destructive revolution. The
Confederation Generale du Travail is rapidly absorbing the
Socialist movement in France, or at least robbing it of the
ardent element that gives it life.
In the British Isles the Socialist movement has had a less
stormy career. After the collapse of Owenism and Chartist
movement, the practical genius of the nation directed its chief
reform energies towards the consolidation of the trade unions
and the building up of the great co-operative enterprise.
Steadily, for some forty years, the trade-union leaders worked
at the strenghening of their respective organizations, which,
with their dual character of friendly societies and professional
associations, had no small part in training the working classes
in habits of combination for common ends. And this lesson was
emphasized and enlarged by the Co-operative movement, which,
springing from the tiny efforts of the Rochdale Pioneers, spread
throughout the country, till it is now one of the mightiest
business organizations in the world. In this movement many a
labour leader learnt habits of business and of successful
committee work that enabled him later on to deal on equal, or
even on advantageous, terms with the representatives of the
owning classes. But during all this period of training the
Socialist movement proper lay dormant. It was not until 1884,
with the foundation of the strictly Marxian Social Democratic
Federation by H. M. Hyndman, that the Socialist propaganda took
active in England. It did not achieve any great immediate
success, not has it ever since shown signs of appealing widely
to the English temperament. But it was a beginning, and it was
followed by other, more inclusive, organizations. A few months
after its foundation the Socialist League, led by William
Morris, seceded from it and had a brief and stormy existence. In
1893, at Bradford, the "Independent Labour Party" was formed
under the leadership of J. Keir Hardie, with the direct purpose
of carrying Socialism into politics. Attached to it were two
weekly papers, "The Clarion" and "The Labour Leader"; the former
of which, by its sale of over a million copies of an able little
manual, "Merrie England", had no small part in the diffusion of
popular Socialism. All these three bodies were popular
Socialism. All these three bodies were Marxian in doctrine and
largely working class in membership.
But, as early as 1883, a group of middle-class students had
joined together as The Fabian Society. This body, while calling
itself Socialist, rejected the Marxian in favour of Jevonsian
economics, and devoted itself to the social education of the
public by means of lectures, pamphlets and books, and to the
spread of Collectivist ideas by the "permeation" of public
bodies and political parties. Immense as have been its
achievements in this direction, its constant preoccupation with
practical measures of reform and its contact with organized
party politics have led it rather in the direction of the
"Servile State" than of the Socialist Commonwealth. But the
united efforts of the various Socialist bodies, in concert with
trade unionism, resulted, in 1899, in the formation of the
Labour Representation Committee which, seven years later, had
developed into the Labour Party, with about thirty
representatives in the House of Commons. Already, however, a few
years' practical acquaintance with party politics has diminished
the Socialist orthodoxy of the Labour Party, and it shows signs
of becoming absorbed in the details of party contention.
Significant commentaries appeared in the summer of 1911 and in
the spring of 1912; industrial disturbances, singularly
resembling French Syndicalism, occurred spontaneously in most
commercial and mining centres, and the whole Labour movement in
the British Isles has reverted to the Revolutionary type that
last appeared in 1889.
In every European nation the Socialist movement has followed,
more or less faithfully, one of the three preceding types. In
Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and Italy it is predominantly
parliamentary: in Russia, Spain, and Portugal it displays a more
bitterly revolutionary character. But everywhere the two
tendencies, parliamentary and revolutionary, struggle for the
upper hand; now one, now the other becoming predominant. Nor is
the movement in the United States any exception to the rule. It
began about 1849, purely as a movement among the German and
other immigrants and, in spite of the migration of the old
International to New York in 1872, had but little effect upon
the native population till the Henry George movement of 1886.
Even then jealousies and divisions restricted its action, till
the reorganization of the Socialist Labour Party at Chicago in
1889. Since then the movement has spread rapidly. In 1897
appeared the Social Democracy of America, which, uniting with
the majority of the Socialist Labour Party in 1901, formed the
present rapidly growing Socialist Party. In the United States
the movement is still strongly Marxian in character, though a
Revisionist school is growing up, somewhat on the lines of the
English Fabian movement, under the influence of writers like
Edmond Kelly, Morris Hillquit, and Professors Ely and Zuelin.
But the main body is still crudely Revolutionary, and is likely
to remain so until the political democracy of the nation is more
perfectly reflected in its economic conditions.
These main points in the history of Socialism lead up to an
examination of its spirit and intention. The best idealism of
earlier times was fixed upon the soul rather than upon the body:
exactly the opposite is the case with Socialism. Social
questions are almost entirely questions of the body -- public
health, sanitation, housing, factory conditions, infant
mortality, employment of women, hours of work, rates of wages,
accidents, unemployment, pauperism, old age pensions, sickness,
infirmity, lunacy, feeble-mindedness, intemperance,
prostitution, physical deterioration. All these are excellent
ends for activity in themselves, but all of them are mainly
concerned with the care or cure of the body. To use a Catholic
phrase, they are opportunities for corporal works of mercy,
which may lack the spiritual intention that would make them
Christian. The material may be made a means to the spiritual,
but is not to be considered an end in itself. This world is a
place of probation, and the time is short. Man is here for a
definite purpose, a purpose which transcends the limits of this
mortal life, and his first business is to realize this purpose
and carry it out with whatever help and guidance he may find.
The purpose is a spiritual one, but he is free to choose or
refuse the end for which he was created; he is free to neglect
or to co-operate with the Divine assistance, which will give his
life the stability and perfection of a spiritual rather than of
a material nature. This being so, there must be a certain order
in the nature of his development. He is not wholly spiritual nor
wholly material; he has a soul, a mind, and a body; but the
interests of the soul must be supreme, and the interests of mind
and body must be brought into proper subservience to it. His
movement towards perfection is by way of ascent; it is not easy;
it requires continual exercise of the will, continual
discipline, continual training -- it is a warfare and a
pilgrimage, and in it are two elements, the spiritual and the
material, which are one in the unity of his daily life. As St.
Paul pointed out, there must be a continual struggle between
these two elements. If the individual life is to be a success,
the spiritual desire must triumph, the material one must be
subordinate, and when this is so the whole individual life is
lived with proper economy, spiritual things being sought after
as an end, while material things are used merely as a means to
that end.
The point, then, to be observed is that the spiritual life is
really the economic life. From the Christian point of view
material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material
superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with
altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who
requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing
more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to
earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus
even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the
individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the
better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because
his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he
lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more
beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which he makes
against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to
distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a
substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the
State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The
Christian replies to him: "You cannot maintain this widespread
distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery
for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you
can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you
centre and concentrate all their interest on material
accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods."
This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist
teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all
human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material
benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in
quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of
satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more
and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism
are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which
is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself,
can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and
materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most
exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known
to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and
practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both
according to the law of justice and according to the law of
charity.
Again, ethically speaking, Socialism is committed to the
doctrine of determinism. Holding that society makes the
individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has
quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of
free will. This fact may be illustrated by its attitude towards
the three great institutions which have hitherto most strongly
exemplified and protected that doctrine -- the Church, the
Family, and private ownership. Socialism, with its essentially
materialistic nature, can admit no raison d'etre for a spiritual
power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the
State. Man, as the creature of a material environment, and as
the subject of a material State, has no moral responsibilities
and can yield to no allegiance beyond that of the State. Any
power which claims to appropriate and discipline his interior
life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all
evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur
Socialist opposition. So, too, with the Family. According to the
prevalent Socialist teaching, the child stands between two
authorities, that of its parents and that of the State, and of
these the State is certainly the higher. The State therefore is
endowed with the higher authority and with all powers of
interference to be used at its own discretion. Contrast this
with the Christian notion of the Family -- an organic thing with
an organic life of its own. The State, it is true, must ensure a
proper basis for its economic life, but beyond that it should
not interfere: its business is not to detach the members of the
family from their body in order to make them separately and
selfishly efficient; a member is cut off from its body only as a
last resource to prevent organic poisoning. The business of the
State is rather that of helping the Family to a healthy,
co-operative, and productive unity. The State was never meant to
appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather
meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a
wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly
parental. Socialism, then, both in Church and Family, is
impersonal and deterministic: it deprives the individual of both
his religious and his domestic freedom. And it is exactly the
same with the institution of private property.
The Christian doctrine of property can best be stated in the
words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "In regard to an external thing man
has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it,
and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private
property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three
reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking
after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the
common property of all or of many; because each person, trying
to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's
business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly,
because there is more order in the management of men's affairs
if each has his own work of looking after definite things;
whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything
indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of
men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his
own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between
those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which
man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to
this man must not hold external things as his own property, but
as everyone's; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing
when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a.
2). If man, then, has the right to own, control, and use private
property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away;
it can only protect it. Here, of course, we are at issue with
Socialism, for, according to it, the State is the supreme power
from which all human rights are derived; it acknowledges no
independent spiritual, domestic, or individual power whatever.
In nothing is the bad economy of Socialism more evident than in
its derogation or denial of all the truly personal and
self-directive powers of human nature, and its misuse of such of
such human qualities as it does not despise or deny is a plain
confession of its material and deterministic limitations. It is
true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of
private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection
of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice
between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This
area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by
private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the
Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The
State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of
free and fine production, not only of material but also of
intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their
defender.
In apparent contradiction, however, to much of the foregoing
argument are the considerations put forward by numerous schools
of "Christian Socialism", both Catholic and non-Catholic. It
will be urged that there cannot really be the opposition between
Socialism and Christianity that is here suggested, for, as a
matter of fact, many excellent and intelligent persons in all
countries are at once convinced Christians and ardent
Socialists. Now, before it is possible to estimate correctly how
far this undoubted fact can alter the conclusions arrived at
above, certain premises must be noted. First, it is not
practically possible to consider Socialism solely as an economic
or social doctrine. It has long passed the stage of pure theory
and attained the proportions of a movement: It is to-day a
doctrine embodied in programmes, a system of thought and belief
that is put forward as the vivifying principle of an active
propaganda, a thing organically connected with the intellectual
and moral activities of the millions who are its adherents.
Next, the views of small and scattered bodies of men and women,
who profess to reconcile the two doctrines, must be allowed no
more than their due weight when contrasted with the expressed
beliefs of not only the majority of the leading exponents of
Socialism, past and present, but also of the immense majority of
the rank and file in all nations. Thirdly, for Catholics, the
declarations of supreme pontiffs, of the Catholic hierarchy, and
of the leading Catholic sociologists and economists have an
important bearing on the question, an evidential force not to be
lightly dismissed. Lastly, the real meaning attached to the
terms "Christianity" and "Socialism", by those who profess to
reconcile these doctrines, must always be elicited before it is
possible to estimate either what doctrines are being reconciled
or how far that reconciliation is of any practical adequacy.
If it be found on examination that the general trend of the
Socialist movement, the predominant opinion of the Socialists,
the authoritative pronouncements of ecclesiastical and expert
Catholic authority all tend to emphasize the philosophical
cleavage indicated above, it is probably safe to conclude that
those who profess to reconcile the two doctrines are mistaken:
either their grasp of the doctrines of Christianity or of
Socialism will be found to be imperfect, or else their mental
habits will appear to be so lacking in discipline that they are
content with the profession of a belief in incompatible
principles. Now, if Socialism be first considered as embodied in
the Socialist movement and Socialist activity, it is notorious
that everywhere it is antagonistic to Christianity. This is
above all clear in Catholic countries, where the Socialist
organizations are markedly anti-Christian both in profession and
practice. It is true that of late years there has appeared among
Socialists some impatience of remaining mere catspaws of the
powerful Masonic anti-clerical societies, but this is rather
because these secret societies are largely engineered by the
wealthy in the interests of capitalism than from any affection
for Catholicism. The European Socialist remains anti-clerical,
even when he revolts against Masonic manipulation. Nor is this
really less true of non Catholic countries. In Germany, in
Holland, in Denmark, in the United States, even in Great
Britain, organized Socialism is ever prompt to express (in its
practical programme, if not in its formulated creed) its
contempt for and inherent antagonism to revealed Christianity.
What, in public, is not infrequently deprecated is clearly
enough implied in projects of legislation, as well as in the
mental attitude that is usual in Socialist circles.
Nor are the published views of the Socialist leaders and writers
less explicit. "Scientific Socialism" began as an economic
exposition of evolutionary materialism; it never lost that
character. Its German founders, Marx, Engels, Lassalle, were
notoriously anti-Christian both in temper and in acquired
philosophy. So have been its more modern exponents in Germany,
Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Dietzgen, Bernstein, Singer, as well
as the popular papers -- the "Sozial Demokrat", the "Vorwarts",
the "Zimmerer", the "Neue Zeit" -- which reflect, while
expounding, the view of the rank and file; and the Gotha and
Erfurt programmes, which express the practical aims of the
movement. In France and the Netherlands the former and present
leaders of the various Socialist sections are at one on the
question of Christianity -- Lafargue, Herve, Boudin, Guesde,
Jaures, Viviani, Sorel, Briand, Griffuelhes, Largardelle, Tery,
Renard, Nieuwenhuis, Vandervelde -- all are anti-Christian, as
are the popular newspapers, like "La Guerre Sociale",
"L'Humanite", "Le Socialiste", the "Petite Republique", the
"Recht voor Allen", "Le Peuple". In Italy, Austria, Spain,
Russia, and Switzerland it is the same: Socialism goes hand in
hand with the attack on Christianity. Only in the
English-speaking countries is the rule apparently void. Yet,
even there, but slight acquaintance with the leading
personalities of the Socialist movement and the habits of
thought current among them, is sufficient to dispel the
illusion. In Great Britain certain prominent names at once occur
as plainly anti-Christian -- Aveling, Hyndman, Pearson,
Blatchford, Bax, Quelch, Leatham, Morris, Standring -- many of
them pioneers and prophets of the movement in England. The
Fabians, Shaw, Pease, Webb, Guest; independents, like Wells, or
Orage, or Carpenter; popular periodicals like "The Clarion",
"The Socialist Review", "Justice" are all markedly non-Christian
in spirit, though some of them do protest against any necessary
incompatibility between their doctrines and the Christian. It is
true that the political leaders, like Macdonald and Hardie, and
a fair proportion of the present Labour Party might insist that
"Socialism is only Christianity in terms of modern economics",
but the very measures they advocate or support not unfrequently
are anti-Christian in principle or tendency. And in the United
States it is the same. Those who have studied the writings or
speeches of well-known Socialists, such as Bellamy, Gronlund,
Spargo, Hunter, Debs, Herron, Abbott, Brown, Del Mar, Hillquit,
Kerr, or Simmons, or periodicals like the "New York
Volkszeitung", "The People", "The Comrade", or "The Worker", are
aware of the bitterly anti-Christian tone that pervades them and
is inherent in their propaganda.
The trend of the Socialist movement, then, and the deliberate
pronouncements and habitual thought of leaders and followers
alike, are almost universally found to be antagonistic to
Christianity. Moreover, the other side of the question is but a
confirmation of this antagonism. For all three popes who have
come into contact with modern Socialism, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and
Pius X, have formally condemned it, both as a general doctrine
and with regard to specific points. The bishops and clergy, the
lay experts on social and economic questions, the philosophers,
the theologians, and practically the whole body of the faithful
are unanimous in their acceptance of the condemnation. It is of
little purpose to point out that the Socialism condemned is
Marxism, and not Fabianism or its analogues in various
countries. For, in the first place, the main principles common
to all schools of Socialism have been explicitly condemned in
Encyclicals like the "Rerum novarum" or the "Graves de communi";
and, in addition, as has been shown above, the main current of
Socialism is still Marxist, and no adhesion to a movement
professedly international can be acquitted of the guilt of
lending support to the condemned doctrines. The Church, the
Socialists, the very tendency of the movement do but confirm the
antagonism of principle, indicated above, between Socialism and
Christianity. The "Christian Socialists" of all countries,
indeed, fall readily, upon examination, into one of three
categories. Either they are very imperfectly Christian, as the
Lutheran followers of Stocker and Naumann in Germany, or the
Calvinist Socialists in France, or the numerous
vaguely-doctrinal "Free-Church" Socialists in England and
America; or, secondly, they are but very inaccurately styled
"Socialist"; as were the group led by Kingsley, Maurice and
Hughes in England, or "Catholic Democrats" like Ketteler,
Manning, Descurtins, the "Sillonists"; or, thirdly, where there
is an acceptance of the main Christian doctrine, side by side
with the advocacy of Revolutionary Socialism, as is the case
with the English "Guild of St. Matthew" or the New York Church
Association for the Advancement of the Interests of Labour, it
can only be ascribed to that mental facility in holding at the
same time incompatible doctrines, which is everywhere the mark
of the "Catholic but not Roman" school. Christianity and
Socialism are hopelessly incompatible, and the logic of events
makes this ever clearer. It is true that, before the publication
of the Encyclical "Rerum novarum", it was not unusual to apply
the term "Christian Socialism" to the social reforms put forward
throughout Europe by those Catholics who are earnestly
endeavouring to restore the social philosophy of Catholicism to
the position it occupied in the ages of Faith. But, under the
guidance of Pope Leo XIII, that crusade against the social and
economic iniquities of the present age is now more correctly
styled "Christian Democracy", and no really instructed, loyal,
and clear-thinking Catholic would now claim or accept the style
of Christian Socialist.
To sum up, in the words of a capable anonymous writer in "The
Quarterly Review", Socialism has for "its philosophical basis,
pure materialism; its religious basis is pure negation; its
ethical basis the theory that society makes the individuals of
which it is composed, not the individuals society, and that
therefore the structure of society determines individual
conduct, which involves moral irresponsibility; its economic
basis is the theory that labour is the sole producer, and that
capital is the surplus value over bare subsistence produced by
labour and stolen by capitalists; its juristic basis is the
right of labour to the whole product; its historical basis is
the industrial revolution, that is the change from small and
handicraft methods of production to large and mechanical ones,
and the warfare of classes; its political basis is democracy. .
. . It may be noted that some of these [bases] have already been
abandoned and are in ruins, others are beginning to shake; and
as this process advances the defenders are compelled to retreat
and take up fresh positions. Thus the form of the doctrine
changes and undergoes modification, though all cling still to
the central principle, which is the substitution of public for
private ownership".
LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE W.E. CAMPBELL
Socialistic Communities
Socialistic Communities
This title comprehends those societies which maintain common
ownership of the means of production and distribution, e.g.,
land, factories, and stores, and also those which further extend
the practice of common ownership to consumable goods, e.g.,
houses and food. While the majority of the groups treated in the
present article are, strictly speaking, communistic rather than
socialistic, they are frequently designated by the latter term.
The most important of them have already been described under
Communism. Below a more nearly complete list is given, together
with brief notices of those societies that have not been
discussed in the former articles. At the time of the Protestant
Reformation certain socialistic experiments were made by several
heretical sects, including the Anabaptists, the Libertines, and
the Familists; but these sects did not convert their beliefs
along this line into practice with sufficient thoroughness or
for a sufficient length of time to give their attempts any
considerable value or interest (see Kautsky, "Communism in
Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation", London, 1897).
The Labadists, a religious sect with communistic features,
founded a community in Westphalia, in 1672, under the leadership
of Jean de le Badie, an apostate priest. A few years later about
one hundred members of the sect established a colony in Northern
Maryland, but within half a century both communities ceased to
exist.
The Ephrata (Pennsylvania) Community was founded in 1732, and
contained at one time 300 members, but in 1900 numbered only 17.
The Shakers adopted a socialistic form of organization at
Watervliet, New York, in 1776. At their most prosperous period
their various societies comprised about 5000 persons; to-day
(1911) they do not exceed 1000.
The Harmonists, or Rappists, were established in Pennsylvania in
1805. Their maximum membership was 1000; in 1900 they numbered
9. Connected with this society is the Bethel Community, which
was founded (1844) in Missouri by a group which included some
seceders from Harmony. In 1855 the Bethel leader, Dr. Keil,
organized another community at Aurora, Oregon. The combined
membership of the two settlements never exceeded 1000 persons.
Bethel dissolved in 1880 and Aurora in 1881.
The Separatists of Zoar (Ohio) were organized as a socialistic
community in 1818, and dissolved in 1898. At one time they had
500 members.
The New Harmony Community, the greatest attempt ever made in
this form of social organization, was founded in Indiana in 1824
by Robert Owen. Its maximum number of members was 900 and its
length of life two years. Eighteen other communities formed by
seceders from the New Harmony society were about equally
short-lived. Other socialistic settlements that owed their
foundation to the teachings of Owen were set up at Yellow
Springs, Ohio; Nashoba, Tennessee (composed mostly of negroes);
Haverstraw, New York; and Kendal, Oregon. None of them lasted
more than two years.
The Hopedale (Massachusetts) Community was organized in 1842 by
the Rev. Adin Ballou; it never had more than 175 members, and it
came to an end in 1857.
The Brook Farm (Massachusetts) Community was established in 1842
by the Transcendentalist group of scholars and writers. In 1844
it was converted into a Fourierist phalanx; this, however, was
dissolved in 1846.
Of the Fourieristic phalanges two had a very brief existence in
France, and about thirty were organized in the United States
between 1840 and 1850. Their aggregate membership was about
4500, and their longevity varied from a few months to twelve
years. Aside from the one at Brook Farm, the most noteworthy
were: the North American phalanx, founded in 1843 in New Jersey
under the direction of Greeley, Brisbane, Channing, and other
gifted men, and dissolved in 1855; the Wisconsin, or Cresco,
phalanx, organized in 1844, and dispersed in 1850; and the
Sylvania Association of Pennsylvania, which has the distinction
of being the earliest Fourieristic experiment in the United
States, though it lasted only eighteen months.
The Oneida (New York) Community, the members of which called
themselves Perfectionists because they believed that all who
followed their way of life could become perfect, became a
communistic organization in 1848, and was converted into a
joint-stock corporation in 1881. Its largest number of members
was 300.
The first Icarian community was set up in Texas in 1848, and the
last came to an end in 1895 in Iowa. Their most prosperous
settlement, a Nauvoo, numbered more than 500 souls.
The Amana Community was organized on socialistic lines in 1843
near Buffalo, New York, but moved to Amana, Iowa, in 1845. It is
the one communistic settlement that has increased steadily,
though not rapidly, in wealth and numbers. Its members rightly
attribute this fact to its religious character and motive. The
community embraces about 1800 persons.
A unique community is the Woman's Commonwealth, established
about 1875 near Belton, Texas, and transferred to Mount
Pleasant, D.C., in 1898. It was organized by women who from
motives of religious and conscience had separated themselves
from their husbands. As the members number less than thirty and
are mostly those who instituted the community more than
thirty-five years ago, the experiment cannot last many years
longer.
The most important of recently founded communities was the
Ruskin Co-operative Colony, organized in 1894 in Tennessee by J.
A. Wayland, editors of the socialist paper, "The Coming Nation".
While the capital of the community was collectively owned, its
products were distributed among the members in the form of
wages. Owing to dissensions and withdrawals, the colony was
reorganized on a new site in 1896, but it also was soon
dissolved. About 250 of the colonists moved to Georgia, and set
up another community, but this in a few years ceased to exist.
A number of other communities have been formed within recent
years, most of which permit private ownership of
consumption-goods and private family life. As none of them has
became strong either in numbers or in wealth, and as all of them
seem destined to an early death, they will receive only the
briefest mention here. Those worthy of any notice are: The
Christian Commonwealth of Georgia, organized in 1896, and
dissolved in 1900; the Cooperative Brotherhood, of Burley,
Washington; the Straight Edge Industrial Settlement, of New York
City; the Home Colony in the State of Washington, which has the
distinction of being the only anarchist colony; the Mutual Home
Association, located in the same state; the Topolambo Colony in
Mexico, which lasted but a few months; and the Fairhope
(Alabama) Single-Tax Corporation, which has had a fair measure
of success, but which is neither socialistic nor communistic in
the proper sense.
Reviewing the history of socialistic experiments, we perceive
that only those that were avowedly and strongly religious,
adopting a socialistic organization as incidental to their
religious purposes, have achieved even temporary and partial
success. Practically speaking, only two of these religious
communities remain; of these the Shakers are growing steadily
weaker, while the Amana Society is almost stationary, and,
besides, is obliged to carry on some of its industries with the
aid of outside hired labor.
See bibliography under COMMUNISM. HILQUIT, History of Socialism
in the United States (New York, 1903); KENT in Bulletin No. 35
of the Department of Labor; MALLOCK, A Century of Socialistic
Experiments in the Dublin Review, July, 1909; WOLFF, Socialistic
Communism in the United States in the American Catholic
Quarterly Review, III (Philadelphia, 1878), 522; Socialist
Colony in Mexico in Dublin Review, CXIV (London, 1894), 180.
JOHN A. RYAN
Catholic Societies
Catholic Societies
Catholic societies are very numerous throughout the world; some
are international in scope, some are national; some diocesan and
others parochial. These are treated in particular under their
respective titles throughout the Encyclopedia, or else under the
countries or the dioceses in which they exist. This article is
concerned only with Catholic societies in general. The right of
association is one of the natural rights of man. It is not
surprising, therefore, that from earliest antiquity societies of
the most diverse kinds should have been formed. In pagan Rome
the Church was able to carry on its work and elude the
persecuting laws, only under the guise of a private corporation
or society. When it became free it encouraged the association of
its children in various guilds and fraternities, that they might
more easily, while remaining subject to the general supervision
of ecclesiastical authority, obtain some special good for their
souls or bodies or both simultaneously. By a society we
understand the voluntary and durable association of a number of
persons who pledge themselves to work together to obtain some
special end. Of such societies there is a great variety, in the
Church both for laymen and clerics, the most perfect species of
the latter being the regular orders and religious congregations
bound by perpetual vows. As to societies of laymen, we may
distinguish broadly three classes: (a) confraternities, which
are associations of the faithful canonically erected by the
proper ecclesiastical superior to promote a Christian method of
life by special works of piety towards God, e.g. the splendour
of divine worship, or towards one's neighbour, e.g. the
spiritual or corporal works of mercy (see CONFRATERNITY); (b)
pious associations, whose objects are generally the same as
those of confraternities, but which are not canonically erected
(see ASSOCIATIONS, Pious); and (c) societies whose members are
Catholics, but which are not in the strict sense of the word
religious societies. Some of these associations are
ecclesiastical corporations in the strict acceptation of the
term, while others are merely subordinate and dependent parts of
the parish or diocesan organization, or only remotely connected
with it. Church corporations, inasmuch as they are moral or
legal persons, have the right, according to canon law, of making
by-laws for their association by the suffrage of the members, of
electing their own officers, of controlling their property
within the limits of the canons, and of making provision,
according to their own judgment, for their preservation and
growth. They have, consequently, certain defined rights, both
original or those derived from their constitution, and
adventitious or what they have acquired by privilege or
concession. Among original rights of all ecclesiastical
corporations are the right of exclusion or the expelling of
members; of selection or the adoption of new members; of
convention or meeting for debate and counsel; of assistance or
aiding their associates who suffer from a violation of their
corporate rights. Societies of this nature have an existence
independent of the individual members and can be dissolved only
by ecclesiastical decree. Catholic societies which are not
church corporations may be founded and dissolved at the will of
their members. Sometimes they are approved, or technically
praised, by ecclesiastical authority, but they are also
frequently formed without any intervention of the hierarchy. In
general, it may be said that Catholic societies of any
description are very desirable.
The Church has always watched with singular care over the
various organizations formed by the faithful for the promotion
of any good work, and the popes have enriched them with
indulgences. No hard and fast rules have been made, however, as
to the method of government. Some societies, e.g. the
Propagation of the Faith and the Holy Childhood, are general in
their scope; others, e.g. the Church Extension Society of the
United States, are peculiar to one country. It sometimes happens
that an association formed for one country penetrates into
another, e.g. the Piusverein, the Society of Christian Mothers,
etc. There are also societies instituted to provide for some
special need, as an altar or tabernacle society, or for the
furthering of some special devotion, as the Holy Name Society.
For societies which are general in their scope, the Holy See
frequently appoints a cardinal protector and reserves the choice
of the president to itself. This is likewise done as a mark of
special favour to some societies which are only national, as the
Church Extension Society of the United States (Brief of Pius X,
9 June, 1910). In general, it mag be affirmed that it is the
special duty of the bishop and the parish priest to found or
promote such societies as the faithful of their districts may be
in need of. Utility and necessity often vary with the
circumstances of time and country. In some lands it has been
found possible and advisable for the Church authorities to form
Catholic societies of workingmen. These are trades-unions under
ecclesiastical auspices and recall the old Catholic guilds of
the Middle Ages. Zealous bishops and priests have made the
promotion of such societies, as in Germany and Belgium, a
special work, in the hope of preventing Catholic workingmen from
being allured by temporal gain into atheistic societies in which
the foundations of civil and religious institutions are
attacked. In these unions a priest appointed by the bishop gives
religious instructions which are particularly directed against
the impious arguments of those who seek to destroy the morals
and faith of the workingman. Methods are pointed out for
regulating the family life according to the laws of God;
temperance, frugality, and submission to lawful authority are
urged, and frequentation of the sacraments insisted on. These
unions also provide innocent amusements for their members. Such
societies at times add confraternity and sodality features to
their organization.
There are a number of societies formed by Catholics which are
not in a strict sense Catholic societies. Nevertheless, as the
individual faithful are subject to the authority of the bishop
they remain subject to the same authority even as members of an
organization. It is true that the bishop may not, in consequence
of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, rule such societies in the
same sense as he does confraternities, and pious associations,
yet he retains the inalienable right and even the obligation of
preventing the faithful from being led into spiritual ruin
through societies of whatsoever name or purpose. He can,
therefore, if convinced that an organization is harmful, forbid
it to assist at church services in its regalia, and, when no
emendation results, warn individuals against entering it or
remaining members of it. Finally, there are societies which are
entirely secular, whose sole purpose is to promote or obtain
some commercial, domestic, or political advantage, such as the
ordinary trades-unions. In such organizations men of every
variety of religious belief combine together, and many Catholics
are found among the members. There can be no objection to such
societies as long as the end intended and the means employed are
licit and honourable. It remains, however, the duty of the
bishops to see that members of their flock suffer no diminution
of faith or contamination of morals from such organizations.
Experience has proved that secular societies, while perfectly
unobjectionable in their avowed ends, may cause grave spiritual
danger to their members. Bishops and parish priests can not be
blamed therefore, if they display some anxiety as to membership
in societies which are not avowedly Catholic. If they did
otherwise, they would be false to their duty towards their
flock. It may be well to quote here the weighty words of an
Instruction of the Holy Office (10 May, 1884): "Concerning
artisans and labourers, among whom various societies are
especially desirous of securing members that they may destroy
the very foundations of religion and society, let the bishops
place before their eyes the ancient guilds of workingmen, which,
under the protection of some patron saint, were an ornament of
the commonwealth and an aid to the higher and lower arts. They
will again found such societies for men of commercial and
literary pursuits, in which the exercises of religion will go
hand in hand with the benevolent aims that seek to assuage the
ills of sickness, old age, or poverty. Those who preside over
such societies should see that the members commend themselves by
the probity of their morals, the excellence of their work, the
docility and assiduity of their labours, so that they may more
securely provide for their sustenance. Let the bishops
themselves not refuse to watch over such societies, suggest or
approve by-laws, conciliate employers, and give every assistance
and patronage that lie in their power."
There are many societies of Catholics or societies of which
Catholics are members that employ methods which seem imitations
derived from various organizations prohibited by the Church. It
may be well, therefore, to state that no Catholic is allowed, as
a member of any society whatever, to take an oath of blind and
unlimited obedience; or promise secrecy of such a nature that,
if circumstances require it, he may not reveal certain things to
the lawful ecclesiastical or civil authorities; or join in a
ritual which would be equivalent to sectarian worship (see
SOCIETIES, SECRET). Even when a society is founded by Catholics
or is constituted principally of Catholics, it is possible for
it to degenerate into a harmful organization and call for the
intervention of the authority of the Church. Such was the fate
of the once brilliant and meritorious French society "Le
Sillon," which was condemned by Pius X (25 Aug., 1910). It is
often expedient for Catholic societies to be incorporated by the
civil authority as private corporations. In fact, this is
necessary if they wish to possess property or receive bequests
in their own name. In some countries, as Russia, such
incorporation is almost impossible; in others, as Germany and
France, the Government makes many restrictions; but in
English-speaking countries there is no difficulty. In England
societies may be incorporated not only by special legal act, but
also by common law or by prescription. In the United States a
body corporate may be formed only by following the plan proposed
by a law of Congress or a statute of a state legislature. The
procedure varies slightly in different states, but as a rule
incorporation is effected by filing a paper in the office of the
secretary of state or with a circuit judge, stating the object
and methods of the society. Three incorporators are sufficient,
and the Petition will always be granted if the purposes of the
association are not inconsistent with the laws of the United
States or of the particular state in question.
LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (Fribourg, 1905);
WERNZ, Jus decretalium, III (Rome, 1901); AICHNER, Compendium
juris ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); BERINGER, Die Ablaesse (13th
ed., Paderborn, 1911; French tr., 1905); TAYLOR, The Law of
Private Corporations (New York, 1902); Handbook of Catholic
Charitable and Social Works (London, 1912).
WILLIAM H.W. FANNING
American Federation of Catholic Societies
American Federation of Catholic Societies
An organization of the Catholic laity, parishes, and societies
under the guidance of the hierarchy, to protect and advance
their religious, civil, and social interests. It does not
destroy the autonomy of any society or interfere with its
activities, but seeks to unite all of them for purposes of
co-operation and economy of forces. It is not a political
organization, neither does it ask any privileges or favours for
Catholics. The principal object of the Federation is to
encourage (1) the Christian education of youth; (2) the
correction of error and exposure of falsehood and injustice; the
destruction of bigotry; the placing of Catholics and the Church
in their true light, thus removing the obstacles that have
hitherto impeded their progress; (3) the infusion of Christian
principles into public and social life, by combatting the errors
threatening to undermine the foundations of civil society,
notably socialism, divorce, dishonesty in business, and
corruption in politics and positions of public trust. The first
organization to inaugurate the movement for a concerted action
of the societies of Catholic laymen was the Knights of St. John.
At their annual meeting held at Cleveland in 1899 they resolved
to unite the efforts of their local commanderies. In 1900 at
Philadelphia they discussed the question of a federation of all
the Catholic societies. As a result a convention was held on 10
Dec., 1901, at Cincinnati, under the presidency of Mr. H.J.
Fries. Two hundred and fifty delegates were present under the
guidance of Bishop McFaul of Trenton, Bishop Messmer of Green
Bay, now Archbishop of Milwaukee, the principal factors in the
organization of the movement, Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati,
Bishop Horstmann of Cleveland, and Bishop Maes of Covington. A
charter bond was framed and the Federation formally established,
with Mr. T.B. Minahan as its first president. Since then annual
conventions have been held. The Federation represents close to
two million Catholics. It has been approved by Popes Leo XIII
and Pius X, and practically all the hierarchy of the country.
The fruits of the labours of the organization have been
manifold; among other things it has helped to obtain a fair
settlement of the disputes concerning the church property in the
Philippines, permission for the celebration of Mass in the
navy-yards, prisons, reform schools; assistance for the Catholic
Indian schools and negro missions; the withdrawal and
prohibition of indecent plays and post-cards. It has prevented
the enactment of laws inimical to Catholic interests in several
state legislatures. One of its chief works has been the uniting
of the Catholics of different nationalities, and harmonizing
their efforts for self-protection and improvement. It publishes
a monthly Bulletin, which contains valuable social studies. The
national secretary is Mr. Anthony Matre, Victoria Building, St.
Louis, Missouri.
MATRE, Hist. of the Feder. of Cath. Soc. in The Catholic
Columbian (Columbus, Ohio, 18 Aug., 1911); MCFAUL, The Amer.
Feder. of Cath. Soc. (Cincinnati, 1911).
A.A. MACERLEAN
Secret Societies
Secret Societies
A designation of which the exact meaning has varied at different
times.
I. DEFINITION
"By a secret society was formerly meant a society which was
known to exist, but whose members and places of meetings were
not publicly known. Today, we understand by a secret society, a
society with secrets, having a ritual demanding an oath of
allegiance and secrecy, prescribing ceremonies of a religious
character, such as the use of the Bible, either by extracts
therefrom, or by its being placed an altar within a lodge-room,
by the use of prayers, of hymns, of religious signs and symbols,
special funeral services, etc." (Rosen, "The Catholic Church and
Secret Societies," p. 2). Raich gives a more elaborate
description: "Secret societies are those organizations which
completely conceal their rules, corporate activity, the names of
their members, their signs, passwords and usages from outsiders
or the 'profane.' As a rule, the members of these societies are
bound to the strictest secrecy concerning all the business of
the association by oath or promise or word of honour, and often
under the threat of severe punishment in case of its violation.
If such secret society has higher and lower degrees, the members
of the higher degree must be equally careful to conceal their
secrets from their brethren of a lower degree. In certain secret
societies, the members are not allowed to know even the names of
their highest officers. Secret societies were founded to promote
certain ideal aims, to be obtained not by violent but by moral
measures. By this, they are distinguished from conspiracies and
secret plots which are formed to attain a particular object
through violent means. Secret societies may be religious,
scientific, political or social" (Kirchenlex., V, p. 519).
Narrowing the definition still more to the technical meaning of
secret societies (societates clandestinae) in ecclesiastical
documents, Archbishop Katzer in a Pastoral (20 Jan., 1895) says:
"The Catholic Church has declared that she considers those
societies illicit and forbidden which (1) unite their members
for the purpose of conspiring against the State or Church; (2)
demand the observance of secrecy to such an extent that it must
be maintained even before the rightful ecclesiastical authority;
(3) exact an oath from their members or a promise of blind and
absolute obedience; (4) make use of a ritual and ceremonies that
constitute them sects."
II. ORIGIN
Though secret societies, in the modern and technical sense, did
not exist in antiquity, yet there were various organizations
which boasted an esoteric doctrine known only to their members,
and carefully concealed from the profane. Some date societies of
this kind back to Pythagoras (582-507 B.C.). The Eleusinian
Mysteries, the secret teachings of Egyptian and Druid
hierarchies, the esoteric doctrines of the Magian and Mithraic
worshippers furnished material for such secret organizations. In
Christian times, such heresies as the Gnostic and Manichaean
also claimed to possess a knowledge known only to the
illuminated and not to be shared with the vulgar. Likewise, the
enemies of the religious order of Knights Templars maintained
that the brothers of the Temple, while externally professing
Christianity, were in reality pagans who veiled their impiety
under orthodox terms to which an entirely different meaning was
given by the initiated. Originally, the various guilds of the
Middle Ages were in no sense secret societies in the modern
acceptation of the term, though some have supposed that symbolic
Freemasonry was gradually developed in those organizations. The
fantastic Rosicrucians are credited with something of the nature
of a modern secret society, but the association, if such it was,
can scarcely be said to have emerged into the clear light of
history.
III. MODERN ORGANIZATIONS
Secret societies in the true sense began with symbolic
Freemasonry about the year 1717 in London (see MASONRY). This
widespread oath-bound association soon became the exemplar or
the parent of numerous other fraternities, nearly all of which
have some connexion with Freemasonry, and in almost every
instance were founded by Masons. Among these may be mentioned
the Illuminati, the Carbonari, the Odd-Fellows, the Knights of
Pythias, the Sons of Temperance and similar societies whose
number is legion. Based on the same principles as the secret
order to which they are affiliated are the women-auxiliary
lodges, of which almost every secret society has at least one.
These secret societies for women have also their rituals, their
oaths, and their degrees. Institutions of learning are also
infected with the glamour of secret organizations and the
"Eleusis" of Chi Omega (Fayetteville, Ark.) of 1 June, 1900,
states that there are twenty-four Greek letter societies with
seven hundred and sixty-eight branches for male students, and
eight similar societies with one hundred and twenty branches for
female students, and a total membership of 142,456 in the higher
institutions of learning in the United States.
IV. ATTITUDE OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES
The judgment of the Church on secret oath-bound associations has
been made abundantly clear by papal documents. Freemasonry was
condemned by Clement XII in a Constitution, dated 28 April,
1738. The pope insists on the objectionable character of
societies that commit men of all or no religion to a system of
mere natural righteousness, that seek their end by binding their
votaries to secret pacts by strict oaths, often under penalties
of the severest character, and that plot against the
tranquillity of the State. Benedict XIV renewed the condemnation
of his predecessor on 18 May, 1751. The Carbonari were declared
a prohibited society by Pius VII in a Constitution dated 13
Sept., 1821, and he made it manifest that organizations similar
to Freemasonry involve an equal condemnation. The Apostolic
Constitution "Quo Graviora" of Leo XII (18 March, 1825) put
together the acts and decrees of former pontiffs on the subject
of secret societies and ratified and confirmed them. The
dangerous character and tendencies of secret organizations among
students did not escape the vigilance of the Holy See, and Pius
VIII (24 May, 1829) raised his warning voice concerning those in
colleges and academies, as his predecessor, Leo XII, had done in
the matter of universities. The succeeding popes, Gregory XVI
(15 Aug., 1832) and Pius IX (9 Nov., 1846; 20 Apr., 1849; 9
Dec., 1854; 8 Dec., 1864; 25 Sept., 1865), continued to warn the
faithful against secret societies and to renew the ban of the
Church on their designs and members. On 20 Apr., 1884, appeared
the famous Encyclical of Leo XIII, "Humanum Genus." In it the
pontiff says: "As soon as the constitution and spirit of the
masonic sect were clearly discovered by manifest signs of its
action, by cases investigated, by the publication of its laws
and of its rites and commentaries, with the addition often of
the personal testimony of those who were in the secret, the
Apostolic See denounced the sect of the Freemasons and publicly
declared its constitution as contrary to law and right, to be
pernicious no less to Christendom than to the State; and it
forbade anyone to enter the society, under the penalties which
the Church is wont to inflict upon exceptionally guilty persons.
The sectaries, indignant at this, thinking to elude or to weaken
the force of these decrees, partly by contempt of them and
partly by calumny, accused the Sovereign Pontiffs who had
uttered them, either of exceeding the bounds of moderation or of
decreeing what was not just. This was the manner in which they
endeavoured to elude the authority and weight of the Apostolic
Constitutions of Clement XII and Benedict XIV, as well as of
Pius VIII and Pius IX. Yet in the very society itself there were
found men who unwillingly acknowledged that the Roman Pontiffs
had acted within their right, according to the Catholic doctrine
and discipline. The pontiffs received the same assent, and in
strong terms, from many princes and heads of governments, who
made it their business either to delate the masonic society to
the Holy See, or of their own accord by special enactments to
brand it as pernicious, as for example in Holland, Austria,
Switzerland, Spain, Bavaria, Savoy and other parts of Italy.
But, what is of the highest importance, the course of events has
demonstrated the prudence of our predecessors." Leo XIII makes
it clear that it is not only the society explicitly called
Masonic that is objectionable: "There are several organized
bodies which, though they differ in name, in ceremonial, in form
and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of
purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions as to make
in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a
kind of centre whence they all go forth and whither they all
return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed;
for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the
public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet,
when thoroughly understood they are found still to retain the
nature and the habits of secret societies." The pope is not
unmindful of the professed benevolent aims of these societies:
"They speak of their zeal for a more cultured refinement and of
their love of the poor; and they declare their one wish to be
the amelioration of the condition of the masses, and to share
with the largest possible number all the benefits of civil life.
Even were these purposes aimed at in real truth, yet they are by
no means the whole of their object. Moreover, to be enrolled it
is necessary that candidates promise and undertake to be
thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters
with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness
to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their
will." The pontiff then points out the dire consequences which
result from the fact that these societies substitute Naturalism
for the Church of Christ and inculcate, at the very least,
indifferentism in matters of religion. Other papal utterances on
secret societies are: "Ad Apostolici," 15 Oct., 1890;
"Praeclara," 20 June, 1894; "Annum Ingressi," 18 Mar., 1902.
V. THE SOCIETIES FORBIDDEN
The extension of the decrees of the Apostolic See in regard to
societies hitherto forbidden under censure is summed up in the
well-known Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of Pius IX, where
excommunication is pronounced against those "who give their
names to the sect of the masons or Carbonari or any other sects
of the same nature, which conspire against the Church or
lawfully constituted Governments, either openly or covertly, as
well as those who favor in any manner these sects or who do not
denounce their leaders and chiefs." The condemned societies here
described are associations formed to antagonize the Church or
the lawful civil power. A society to be of the same kind as the
Masonic, must also be a secret organization. It is of no
consequence whether the society demand an oath to observe its
secrets or not. It is plain also that public and avowed attacks
on Church or State are quite compatible with a secret
organization. It must not supposed, however, that only societies
which fall directly under the formal censure of the Church are
prohibited. The Congregation of the Holy Office issued an
instruction on 10 May, 1884, in which it says: "That there maybe
no possibility of error when there is a question of judging
which of these pernicious societies fall under censure or mere
prohibition, it is certain in the first place, that the Masonic
and other sects of the same nature are excommunicated, whether
they exact or do not exact an oath from their members to observe
secrecy. Besides these, there are other prohibited societies, to
be avoided under grave sin, and among which are especially to be
noted those which under oath, communicate a secret to their
members to be concealed from everybody else, and which demand
absolute obedience to unknown leaders." To the secret societies
condemned by name, the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 20
Aug., 1894, in a Decree addressed to the hierarchy of the United
States, added the Odd-Fellows, the Sons of Temperance, and the
Knights of Pythias.
VI. RECENTLY CONDEMNED SOCIETIES
The order of Odd-Fellows was formed in England in 1812 as a
completed organization, though some lodges date back to 1745;
and it was introduced into America in 1819. In the "Odd-Fellows'
Improved Pocket Manual" the author writes: "Our institution has
instinctively, as it were, copied after all secret associations
of religious and moral character." The "North-West Odd-Fellow
Review" (May, 1895) declares: "No home can be an ideal one
unless the principles of our good and glorious Order are
represented therein, and its teachings made the rule of life."
In the "New Odd-Fellows' Manual" (N.Y., 1895) the author says:
"The written as well as the unwritten secret work of the Order,
I have sacredly kept unrevealed," though the book is dedicated
"to all inquirers who desire to know what Odd-Fellowship really
is." This book tells us "Odd-Fellowship was founded on great
religious principles" (p. 348); "we use forms of worship" (p.
364); "Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism recognize the only
living and true God" (p. 297). The Odd- Fellows have chaplains,
altars, high-priests, ritual, order of worship, and funeral
ceremonies.
The order of the Sons of Temperance was founded in New York in
1842 and introduced into England in 1846. The "Cyclopaedia of
Fraternities" says (p. 409): "The Sons of Temperance took the
lead in England in demonstrating the propriety and
practicability of both men and women mingling in secret society
lodges." That the object of this order and its kindred societies
is not confined to temperance "is evidenced by its mode of
initiation, the form of the obligation and the manner of
religious worship" (Rosen, p. 162).
The order of the Knights of Pythias was founded in 1864 by
prominent Freemasons (Cyclop. of Fraternities, p. 263). In
number, its membership is second only to that of the
Odd-Fellows. Rosen (The Catholic Church and Secret Societies)
says: "The principal objectionable features, on account of which
the Catholic Church has forbidden its members to join the
Knights of Pythias, and demanded a withdrawal of those who
joined it, are: First, the oath of secrecy by which the member
binds himself to keep secret whatever concerns the doings of the
Order, even from those in Church and State who have a right to
know, under certain conditions, what their subjects are doing.
Secondly, this oath binds the member to blind obedience, which
is symbolized by a test. Such an obedience is against the law of
man's nature, and against all divine and human law. Thirdly,
Christ is not the teacher and model in the rule of life but the
pagan Pythagoras and the pagans Damon, Pythias and Dionysius"
(p. 160). The "Ritual for the subordinate Lodges of the Knights
of Pythias" (Chicago, 1906) shows that this organization has
oaths, degrees, prelates, and a ritual that contains religious
worship.
The decree of the Holy Office concerning the Odd-Fellows, Sons
of Temperance, and Knights of Pythias, though not declaring them
to be condemned under censure, says: "The bishops must endeavour
by all means to keep the faithful from joining all and each of
the three aforesaid societies; and warn the faithful against
them, and if, after proper monition, they still determine to be
members of these societies, or do not effectually separate
themselves from them, they are to be forbidden the reception of
the sacraments. A decree of 18 Jan., 1896, allows a nominal
membership in these three societies, if in the judgment of the
Apostolic delegate, four conditions are fulfilled: that the
society was entered in good faith, that there be no scandal,
that grave temporal injury would result from withdrawal, and
that there be no danger of perversion. The delegate, in granting
a dispensation, usually requires a promise that the person will
not attend any meetings or frequent the lodge-rooms, that the
dues be sent in by mail or by a third party, and that in case of
death the society will have nothing to do with the funeral.
VII. ORDERS OF WOMEN
In regard to female secret societies, the Apostolic delegation
at Washington, 2 Aug., 1907, declared (Ans. no. 15,352-C): "If
these societies are affiliated to societies already nominally
condemned by the Church, they fall under the same condemnation,
for they form, as it were, a branch of such societies. As
regards other female secret societies which may not be
affiliated with societies condemned expressly by the Church, the
confessor must in cases of members belonging to such societies,
apply the principles of moral theology which treat of secret
societies in general." The document adds that members of female
secret societies affiliated to the three societies condemned in
1894 will be dealt with by the Apostolic delegate in the same
manner as male members when the necessary conditions are
fulfilled.
VIII. TRADES UNIONS
The Third Council of Baltimore (no. 253) declares: "We see no
reason why the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and
other secret societies should be extended to organizations of
workingmen, which have no other object in view than mutual
protection and aid for their members in the practice of their
trades. Care must be taken, however, that nothing, be admitted
under any pretext which favors condemned societies; or that the
workingmen who belong to these organizations be induced, by the
cunning arts of wicked men, to withhold, contrary to the laws of
justice, the labor due from them, or in any other manner violate
the rights of their employers. Those associations are entirely
illicit, in which the members are so bound for mutual defense
that danger of riots and murders is the outcome."
IX. METHOD OF CONDEMNATION
Finally, in regard to the condemnation of individual societies
in the United States, the council says (no. 255): "To avoid
confusion of discipline which ensues, to the great scandal of
the faithful and the detriment of ecclesiastical authority, when
the same society is condemned in one diocese and tolerated in
another, we desire that no society be condemned by name as
falling under one of the classes [of forbidden societies] before
the Ordinary has brought the matter before a commission which we
now constitute for judging such cases, and which will consist of
all the archbishops of these provinces. If it be not plain to
all that a ~society is to be condemned, recourse must be had to
the Holy See in order that a definite judgment be obtained and
that uniform discipline may be preserved in these provinces".
STEVENS, The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities (New York, 1907); COOK,
Revised Knights of Pythias Illustrated-Ritual for Subordinate
Lodges of the Knights of Pythias Adopted by the Supreme Lodge
(Chicago, 1906); IDEM, Revised Odd-Fellowship Illustrated -- The
Complete Revised Ritual (Chicago, 1906); CARNAHAN, Pythian
Knighthood (Cincinnati, 1888); F.J.L., The Order of the Knights
of Pythias in the Light of God's Word (Lutheran Tract) (New
Orleans, 1899); DALLMAN, Odd-Fellowship Weighed -- Wanting
(Pittsburgh, 1906); GERBER, Der Odd-Fellow Orden. u. Das Decret
vom 1894 (Berlin, 1896); MACDILL AND BLANCHARD, Secret Societies
(Chicago, 1891); DALLMANN, Opinions on Secret Societies
(Pittsburgh, 1906); H.C.S., Two Discourses Against Secret
Oath-Bound Societies or Lodges (Columbus, O., s.d.); KELLOGG,
College Secret Societies (Chicago, 1894); ROSEN, The Catholic
Church and Secret Societies (Hollendale, Wis., 1902); IDEM,
Reply to my Critics of the Cath. Church and Secret Societies
(Dubuque, 1903). See also the extended bibliography appended to
article MASONRY.
WILLIAM H.W. FANNING
Society
Society
Society implies fellowship, company, and has always been
conceived as signifying a human relation, and not a herding of
sheep, a hiving of bees, or a mating of wild animals. The
accepted definition of a society is a stable union of a
plurality of persons cooperating for a common purpose of benefit
to all. The fulness of co-operation involved naturally extends
to all the activities of the mind, will, and external faculties,
commensurate with the common purpose and the bond of union: this
alone presents an adequate, human working-together.
This definition is as old as the Schoolmen, and embodies the
historical concept as definitized by cogent reasoning. Under
such reasoning it has become the essential idea of society and
remains so still, notwithstanding the perversion of
philosophical terms consequent upon later confusion of man with
beast, stock, and stone. It is a priori only as far as chastened
by restrictions put upon it by the necessities of known truth,
and is a departure from the inductive method in vogue to-day
only so far as to exclude rigidly the aberrations of uncivilized
tribes and degenerate races from the requirements of reason and
basic truth. Historical induction taken alone, while
investigating efficient causes of society, may yet miss its
essential idea, and is in peril of including irrational abuse
with rational action and development.
The first obvious requisite in all society is authority. Without
this there can be no secure co-ordination of effort nor
permanency of co-operation. No secure co-ordination, for men's
judgment will differ on the relative value of means for the
common purpose, men's choice will vary on means of like value;
and unless there is some headship, confusion will result. No
permanence of co-operation, for the best of men relax in their
initial resolutions, and to hold them at a coordinate task, a
tight rein and a steady spur is needed. In fact, reluctant
though man is to surrender the smallest tittle of independence
and submit in the slightest his freedom to the bidding of
another, there never has been in the history of the world a
successful, nor even a serious attempt at co-operative effort
without authoritative guidance (see AUTHORITY, CIVIL). Starting
with this definition and requirement, philosophy finds itself
confronted with two kinds of society, the artificial or
conventional, and the natural; and on pursuing the subject,
finds the latter differentiating itself into domestic society,
or the family, civil society, or the State, and religious
society, or the Church. Each of these has a special treatment
under other headings (see FAMILY; STATE AND CHURCH). Here,
however, we shall state the philosophic basis of each, and add
thereto the theories which have had a vogue for the last three
centuries though breaking down now under the strain of modern
problems before the bar of calm judgment.
CONVENTIONAL SOCIETIES
The plurality of persons, the community of aim, the stability of
bond, authority, and some co-operation of effort being elements
common to every form of society, the differentiation must come
from differences in the character of the purpose, in the nature
of the bond. Qualifications of authority as well as
modifications in details of requisite co-operation will follow
on changes in the purpose and the extent of the bond. As many
then as there are objects of human desire attainable by common
effort (and their name is legion, from the making of money,
which is perhaps the commonest to-day, to the rendering of
public worship to our Maker which is surely the most sacred), so
manifold are the co-operative associations of men. The
character, as well as the existence of most of them, is left in
full freedom to human choice. These may be denominated
conventional societies. Man is under no precept to establish
them, nor in universal need of them. He makes or unmakes them at
his pleasure. They serve a passing purpose, and in setting them
up men give them the exact character which they judge at present
suitable for their purpose, determining as they see fit the
limits of authority, the choice of means, the extent of the bond
holding them together, as well as their own individual
reservations. Everything about such a society is of free
election, barring the fact that the essential requisites of a
society must be there. We find this type exemplified in a
reading circle,, a business partnership, or a private charitable
organization. Of course, in establishing such a society men are
under the Natural Law of right and wrong, and there can be no
moral bond, for example, where the common purpose is immoral.
They also fall under the restrictions of tho civil law, when the
existence or action of such an organization comes to have a
bearing, whether of promise or of menace, upon the common weal.
In such case the State lays down its essential requirements for
the formation of such bodies, and so we come to have what is
known as a legal society, a society, namely, freely established
under the sanction and according to the requirements of the
civil law. Such are mercantile corporations and beneficial
organizations with civil charter.
NATURAL SOCIETIES
Standing apart from the foregoing in a class by themselves are
the family, the State, and the Church. That these differ from
all other societies in purpose and means, is clear and
universally admitted. That they have a general application to
the whole human race, history declares. That there is a
difference between the bond holding them in existence and the
bond of union in every other society, has been disputed -- with
more enthusiasm and imagination, however, than logical force.
The logical view of the matter brings us to the concept of a
natural society, a society, that is to say, which men are in
general under a mandate of the natural law to establish, a
society by consequence whose essential requisites are firmly
fixed by the same natural law. To get at this is simple enough,
if the philosophical problems are taken up in due order. Ethics
may not be divided from psychology and theodicy, any more than
from deductive logic. With the proper premisals then from one
and the other here assumed, we say that the Creator could not
have given man a fixed nature, as He has, without willing man to
work out the purpose for which that nature is framed. He cannot
act idly and without purpose, cannot form His creature
discordantly with the purpose of His will. He cannot multiply
men on the face of the earth without a plan for working out the
destiny of mankind at large. This plan must contain all the
elements necessary to His purpose, and these necessary details
He must have willed man freely to accomplish, that is to say, He
must have put upon man a strict obligation thereunto. Other
details may be alternatives, or helpful but not necessary, and
these He has left to man's free choice; though where one of
these elements would of its nature be far more helpful than
another, God's counsel to man will be in favour of the former.
God's will directing man through his nature to his share in the
full purpose of the cosmic plan, we know as the natural law,
containing precept, permission, and counsel, according to the
necessity, helpfulness, or extraordinary value of an action to
the achievement of the Divine purpose. We recognize these in the
concrete by a rational study of the essential characteristics of
human nature and its relations with the rest of the universe. If
we find a natural aptitude in man for an action, not at variance
with the general purpose of things, we recognize also the
licence of the natural law to that action. If we find a more
urgent natural propensity to it, we recognize further the
counsel of the law. If we find the use of a natural faculty, the
following up of a natural propensity, inseparable from the
rational fulfilment of the ultimate destiny of the individual or
of the human race, we know that thereon lies a mandate of the
natural law, obliging the conscience of man. We must not,
however, miss the difference, that if the need of the action or
effort is for the individual natural destiny, the mandate lies
on each human being severally: but if the need be for the
natural destiny of the race, the precept does not descend to
this or that particular individual, so long as the necessary
bulk of men accomplish the detail so intended in the plan for
the natural destiny of the race. This is abstract reasoning, but
necessary for the understanding of a natural society in the
fulness of its idea.
SOCIETY NATURAL BY MANDATE
A society, then, is natural by mandate, when the law of nature
sets the precept upon mankind to establish that society. The
precept is recognized by the natural aptitude, propensity, and
need in men for the establishment of such a union. From this
point of view the gift of speech alone is sufficient to show
man's aptitude for fellowship with his kind. It is emphasized by
his manifold perfectibility through contact with others and
through their permanent companionship. Furthermore his normal
shrinking from solitude, from working out the problems of life
alone is evidence of a social propensity to which mankind has
always yielded. If again we consider his dependence for
existence and comfort on the multiplied products of co-ordinate
human effort; and his dependence for the development of his
physical, intellectual, and moral perfectibility on complex
intercourse with others, we see a need, in view of man's
ultimate destiny, that makes the actualization of man's capacity
of organized social co-operation a stringent law upon mankind.
Taking then the kinds of social organization universally
existent among men, it is plain not only that they are the
result of natural propensities, but that, as analysis shows,
they are a human need and hence are prescribed in the code of
the Natural Law.
A SOCIETY NATURAL IN ESSENTIALS
Furthermore, as we understand a legal contract to be one which,
because of its abutment on common interests, the civil law
hedges round with restrictions and reservations for their
protection, similarly on examination we shall find that all
agreements by which men enter into stable social union are
fenced in with limitations set by the natural law guarding the
essential interests of the good of mankind. When, moreover, we
come to social unions prescribed for mankind by mandate of that
law, we expect to find the purpose of the union set by the law
(otherwise the law would not have prescribed the union), all the
details morally necessary for the rational attainment of that
purpose fixed by the law, and all obstacles threatening sure
defeat to that purpose, proscribed by the same. A natural
society, then, besides being natural by mandate, will also be
natural in all its essentials, for as much as these too shall be
determined and ordained by the law.
THE FAMILY, A NATURAL SOCIETY
Working along these lines upon the data given by experience,
personal as well as through the proxy of history, the
philosopher finds in man's nature, considered physiologically
and psychologically, the aptitude, propensity, and, both as a
general thing and for mankind at large, the need of the
matrimonial relation. Seeing the natural and needful purpose to
which this relation shapes itself to be in full the mutually
perfecting compensation of common life between man and woman, as
well as the procreation and education of the child, and keeping
in mind that Nature's Lawgiver has in view the rational
development of the race (or human nature at large) as well as of
the individual, we conclude not only to abiding rational love as
its distinguishing characteristic, but to monogamy and a
stability that is exclusive of absolute divorce. This gives us
the essential requisites of domestic society, a stable union of
man and wife bound together to work for a fixed common good to
themselves and humanity. When this company is filled out with
children and its incidental complement of household servants, we
have domestic society in its fullness. It is created under
mandate of the natural law, for though this or that individual
may safely eschew matrimony for some good purpose, mankind may
not. The individual in exception need not be concerned about the
purpose of the Lawgiver, as human nature is so constituted that
mankind will not fail of its fulfilment. The efficient cause of
this domestic union in the concrete instance is the free consent
of the initial couple, but the character of the juridical bond
which they thus freely accept is determined for them by the
natural law according to Nature's full purpose. Husband and wife
may see to their personal benefit in choosing to establish a
domestic community, but the interests of the child and of the
future race are safeguarded by the law. The essential purpose of
this society we have stated above. The essential requisite of
authority takes on a divided character of partnership, because
of the separate functions of husband and wife requiring
authority as well as calling for harmonious agreement upon
details of common interest: but the headship of final decision
is put by the law, as a matter of ordinary course, in the man,
as is shown by his natural characteristics marking him for the
preference. The essential limitations forbid plural marriage,
race-suicide, sexual excess, unnecessary separation, and
absolute divorce.
THE STATE, A NATURAL SOCIETY
On the same principle of human aptitude, propensity, and need
for the individual and the race, we find the larger social unit
of civil society manifested to us as part of the Divine set
purpose with regard to human nature, and so under precept of the
natural law. Again, the exceptional individual may take to
solitude for some ennobling purpose; but he is an exception, and
the bulk of mankind will not hesitate to fulfil Nature's bidding
and accomplish Nature's purpose. In the concrete instance civil
society, though morally incumbent on man to establish, still
comes into existence by the exercise of his free activity. We
have seen the same of domestic society, which begins by the
mutual free consent of man and woman to the acceptance of the
bond involving all the natural rights and duties of the
permanent matrimonial relation. The beginning of civil society
as an historical fact has taken on divers colours, far different
at different times and places. It has arisen by peaceful
expansion of a family into a widespread kindred eventually
linked together in a civil union. It has sprung from the
multiplication of independent families in the colonizing oF
undeveloped lands. It has come into being under the strong hand
of conquest enforcing law, order, and civil organization, not
always justly, upon a people. There have been rare instances of
its birth through the tutoring efforts of the gentler type of
civilizers, who came to spread the Gospel. But the juridical
origin is not obviously identical with this. History alone
exhibits only the manifold confluent causes which moved men into
an organized civil unit. The juridical cause is quite another
matter. This is the cause which of its character under the
natural law puts the actual moral bond of civil union upon the
many in the concrete, imposes the concrete obligation involving
all the rights, duties, and powers native to a State, even as
the mutual consent of the contracting parties creates the mutual
bond of initial domestic society. This determinant has been
under dispute among Catholic teachers.
The common view of Scholastic philosophy, so ably developed by
Francis Suarez, S.J., sets it in the consent of the constituent
members, whether given explicitly in the acceptance of a
constitution, or tacitly by submitting to an organization of
another's making, even if this consent be not given by immediate
surrender, but by gradual process of slow and often reluctant
acquiescence in the stability of a common union for the
essential civil purpose. In the early fifties of the nineteenth
century Luigi Taparelli, S.J., borrowing an idea from C. de
Haller of Berne, brilliantly developed a theory of the juridical
origin of civil government, which has dominated in the Italian
Catholic schools even to the present day, as well as in Catholic
schools in Europe, whose professors of ethics have been of
Italian training. In this theory civil society has grown into
being from the natural multiplication of cognate families, and
the gradual extension of parental power. The patriarchal State
is the primitive form, the normal type, though by accident of
circumstance States may begin here or there from occupation of
the same wide territory under feudal ownership; by organization
consequent upon conquest; or in rarer instances by the common
consent of independent colonial freeholders. These two Catholic
views part company also in declaring the primitive juridical
determinant of the concrete subject of supreme authority (see
AUTHORITY, CIVIL). To-day the Catholic schools are divided
between these two positions. We shall subjoin below other
theories of the juridical origin of the State, which have no
place in Catholic thought for the simple reason that they
exclude the natural character of civil society and throw to the
winds the principles logically inseparable from the existing
natural law.
With regard to the essential elements in civil society fixed by
the natural law, it is first to be noted that the normal unit is
the family: for not only has the family come historically before
the commonwealth, but the natural needs of man lead him first to
that social combination, in pursuit of a natural result only to
be obtained thereby; and it is logically only subsequent that
the purpose of civil society comes into human life. Of course
this does not mean that individuals actually outside of the
surroundings of family life cannot be constituent members of
civil society with full civic rights and duties, but they are
not the primary unit; they are in the nature of things the
exception, however numerous they may be, and beyond the family
limit of perfectibility it is in the interest of complementary
development that civil activity is exercised. The State cannot
eliminate the family; neither can it rob it of its inalienable
rights, nor bar the fulfilment of its inseparable duties, though
it may restrict the exercise of certain family activities so as
to co-ordinate them to the benefit of the body politic.
Secondly, the natural object pursued by man in his ultimate
social activity is perfect temporal happiness, the satisfaction,
to wit, of his natural faculties to the full power of their
development within his capacity, on his way, of course, to
eternal felicity beyond earth. Man's happiness cannot be handed
over to him, or thrust upon him by another here on earth; for
his nature supposes that his possession of it, and so too in
large measure his achievement of it, shall be by the exercise of
his native faculties. Hence, civil society is destined by the
natural law to give him his opportunity, i. e. to give it to all
who share its citizenship. This shows the proximate natural
purpose of the State to be: first, to establish and preserve
social order, a condition, namely, wherein every man, as far as
may be, is secured in the possession and free exercise of all
his rights, natural and legal, and is held up to the fulfilment
of his duties as far as they bear upon the common weal;
secondly, to put within reasonable reach of all citizens a fair
allowance of the means of temporal happiness. This is what is
known as external peace and prosperity, prosperity being also
denominated the relatively perfect sufficiency of life. There
are misconceptions enough about the generic purpose native to
all civil society. De Haller thought that there is none such;
that civil purposes are all specific, peculiar to each specific
State. Kant limited it to external peace. The Manchester School
did the same, leaving the citizen to work out his subsistence
and development as best he may. The Evolutionist consistently
makes it the survival of the fittest, on the way to developing a
better type. The modern peril is to treat the citizen merely as
an industrial unit, mistaking national material progress for the
goal of civic energy; or as a military unit, looking to
self-preservation as the nation's first if not only aim. Neither
material progress nor martial power, nor merely intellectual
civilization, can fill the requirements of existing and
expanding human nature. The State, while protecting a man's
rights, must put him in the way of opportunity for developing
his entire nature, physical, mental, and moral.
Thirdly, the accomplishment of this calls for an authority which
the Lawgiver of Nature, because he has ordained this society,
has put within the competency of the State, and which, because
of its reach, extending as it does to life and death, to
reluctant subjects and to the posterity of its citizenship,
surpasses the capacity of its citizenship to create out of any
mere conventional surrender of natural rights. The question of
the origin of civil power and its concentration in this or that
subject is like the origin of society itself, a topic of debate.
Catholic philosophy is agreed that it is conferred by Nature's
Lawgiver directly upon the social depositary thereof, as
parental supremacy is upon the father of a family. But the
determination of the depositary is another matter. The doctrine
of Suarez makes the community itself the depositary, immediately
and naturally consequent upon its establishment of civil
society, to be disposed of then by their consent, overt or
tacit, at once or by degrees, according as they determine for
themselves a form of government. This is the only true
philosophical sense of the dictum that "governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed". The Taparelli
school makes the primitive determinant out of an existing prior
right of another character, which passes naturally into this
power. Primitively this is parental supremacy grown to
patriarchal dimensions and resulting at the last in supreme
civil power. Secondarily, it may arise from other rights,
showing natural aptitude preferentially in one subject or
another, as that of feudal ownership of the territory of the
community, capacity to extricate order out of chaos in moments
of civic confusion, military ability and success in case of just
conquest, and, finally, in remote instances by the consent of
the governed.
Finally, the means by which the commonwealth will work toward
its ideal condition of the largest measure of peace and
prosperity attainable are embraced in the just exercise, under
direction of civil authority, of the physical, mental, and moral
activities of the members of the community: and here the field
of human endeavour is wide and expansive. However, the calls
upon the individual by the governmental power are necessarily
limited by the scope of the natural purpose of the State and by
the inalienable prior rights and inseparable duties conferred or
imposed upon the individual by the Natural Law.
RELIGIOUS SOCIETY de facto A SUPERNATURAL SOCIETY
lf we analyze the moral development of man, we find looming
large his obligation to worship his Creator, not only privately,
but publicly, not only as an individual, but in social union.
This opens up another kind of society ordered by the natural
law, to wit, religious society. An examination of this in the
natural order and by force of reason alone would seem to show
that man, though morally obliged to social worship, was morally
free to establish a parallel organization for such worship or to
merge its functions with those of the State, giving a double
character to the enlarged society, namely, civil and religious.
Historically, among those who knew not Divine revelation, men
would seem to have been inclined more to the latter; but not
always so. Of course, the purpose and means of this religious
social duty are so related to those of a merely civil society
that considerable care would have to be exercised in adjusting
the balance of intersecting rights and duties, to define the
relative domains of religious and civil authority, and, finally,
to adjudicate supremacy in case of direct apparent conflict. The
development of all this has been given an entirely different
turn through the intervention of the Creator in His creation by
positive law revealed to man, changing the natural status into a
higher one, eliminating natural religious society, and at the
last establishing through the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ
an universal and unfailing religious society in the Church. This
is a supernatural religious society. (See CHURCH.)
NON-CATHOLIC THEORIES
Thomas Hobbes, starting from the assumption which Calvin had
propagated that human nature is itself perverse and man
essentially inept for consorting with his fellows, made the
natural state of man to be one of universal and continuous
warfare. This, of course, excludes the Maker of man from having
destined him originally to society, since he would in Hobbes's
view have given him a nature exactly the reverse of a
proportioned means. Hobbes thought that he found in man such
selfish rivalry, weak cowardice, and greed of self-glorification
as to make him naturally prey upon his fellows and subdue them,
if he could, to his wants, making might to be the only source of
right. However, finding life intolerable (if not impossible)
under such conditions, he resorted to a social pact with other
men for the establishment of peace, and, as that was a prudent
thing to do, man, adds Hobbes, was thus following the dictates
of reason and in that sense the law of nature. On this basis
Hobbes could and did make civil authority consist in nothing
more than the sum of the physical might of the people massed in
a chosen centre of force. This theory was developed in the
"Leviathan" of Hobbes to account for the existence of civil
authority and civil society, but its author left his reader to
apply the same perversity of nature and exercise of physical
force for the taking of a wife or wives and establishing
domestic society.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, though borrowing largely from Hobbes and
fearlessly carrying some of his principles to their most extreme
issue, had a view in part his own. As for the family, he was
content to leave it as a natural institution, with a stability,
however, commensurate only with the need of putting the
offspring within reach of self-preservation. Not so for the
State. Man naturally, he contended, was sylvan and solitary, a
fine type of indolent animal, mating with his like and living in
the pleasant ease of shady retreats by running waters. He was
virtuous, sufficient to himself for his own needs, essentially
free, leaving others alone in their freedom, and desirous of
being left alone in his. His life was not to be disturbed by the
fever of ambitious desires, the burden of ideas, or the
restriction of moral laws. Unfortunately, he had a capacity and
an itch for self-improvement, and his inventive genius, creating
new conveniences, started new deeds, and to meet these more
readily, he entered into transitory agreements with other men.
Then came differences, fraud, and quarrels, and so ended the
tranquil ease and innocence of his native condition. Through
sheer necessity of self-defence, as in the theory of Hobbes, he
took to the establishment of civil society. To do so without
loss of personal freedom, there was but one way, namely, that
all the members should agree to merge all their rights, wills,
and personalities in a unit moral person and will, leaving the
subject member the satisfaction that he was obeying but his own
will thus merged, and so in possession still of full liberty in
every act. Thus civil authority was but the merger of all rights
and wills in the one supreme right and will of the community.
The merging agreement was Rousseau's "Social Contract".
Unfortunately for its author, as he himself confessed, the
condition of perfect, self-sufficient, lawless man was never
seen on land or sea; and his social contract had no precedent in
all the centuries of the history of man. His dream ignored man s
inalienable rights, took no account of coercing wills that would
not agree, nor of the unauthorized merging of the wills of
posterity, and drained all the vitality as well out of authority
as out of obedience. He left authority a power shorn of the
requisites essential for the purpose of civil security.
The evolutionist, who has left the twisted turn of all his
theories in much of the common language of the day, even after
the theories themselves have died to all serious scientific
acceptance, wished to make ethics a department of materialistic
biology and have the aggregate of human entities assemble by the
same physical laws that mass cells into a living being. Man's
native tendency to persist, pure egoism, made him shrink from
the danger of destruction or injury at the hands of other
individuals, and this timidity became a moving force driving him
to compound with his peers into a unit source of strength
without which he could not persist. From common life in this
unit man's egoism began to take on a bit of altruism, and men
acquired at the last a sense of the common good, which replaced
their original timidity as the spring of merging activity. Later
mutual sympathy put forth its tendrils, a sense of unity sprang
up, and man had a civil society. Herein was latent the capacity
for expressing the general will, which when developed became
civil authority. This evolutionary process is still in motion
toward the last stand foreseen by the theorist, a universal
democracy clad in a federation of the world. All this has been
seriously and solemnly presented to our consideration with a
naive absence of all sense of humour, with no suspicion that the
human mind naturally refuses to confound the unchanging action
of material attraction and repulsion with human choice; or to
mistake the fruit of intellectual planning and execution for the
fortuitous results of blind force. We are not cowards all, and
have not fled to society from the sole promptings of fear, but
from the natural desire we have of human development. Authority
for mankind is not viewed as the necessary resultant of the
necessary influx of all men's wills to one goal, but is
recognized to be a power to loose and to bind in a moral sense
the wills of innumerable freemen.
The neo-pagan theory, renewing the error of Plato and in a
measure of Aristotle also, has made the individual and the
family mere creatures and chattels of the State, and, pushing
the error further, wishes to orientate all moral good and evil,
all right and duty from the authority of the State, whose good
as a national unit is paramount. This theory sets up the State
as an idol for human worship and eventually, if the theory were
acted upon, though its authors dream it not, for human
destruction.
The historical school mistaking what men have done for what men
should do and, while often missing the full induction of the
past, scornfully rejecting as empty apriorism deductive
reasoning from the nature of man, presents a materialistic,
evolutionary, and positivistic view of human society, which in
no way appeals to sane reason. No more does the theory of Kant,
as applied to society in the Hegelian development of it; though,
owing to its intellectual character and appearance of ultimate
analysis, it has found favour with those who seek philosophic
principles from sources of so-called pure metaphysics. It would
be idle to present here with Kant an analysis of the assumption
of the development of all human right from the conditions of the
use of liberty consistent with the general law of universal
liberty, and the creation of civil government as an embodiment
of universal liberty in the unified will of all the constituents
of the State.
SUAREZ, De Opere Sex Dierum, V. vii; IDEM, Defensio Fidei, III,
ii, iii; IDEM, De Legibus, III, ii, iii, iv; COSTA-ROSETTI,
Philosophia Moralis (Innsbruck, 1886); DE HALLER, Restauration
de la Science Politique; TAPARELLI, Dritto Naturale (Rome,
1855); MEYER, Institutiones Juris Naturalis (Freiburg, 1900);
HOBBES, Leviathan (Cambridge University Press); ROUSSEAU, Du
Contrat Social (Paris, 1896), The Social Contract, tr. TOZER
(London, 1909); SPENCER, The Study of Sociology (London); COMTE,
Les Principes du Positivisme; SCHAFFLE, Structure et La Vie du
Corps Social; BLUNTSCHLI, The Theory of the State (Oxford
translation, Clarendon Press, 1901); STERRETT, The Ethics of
Hegel (Boston, 1893); WOODROW WILSON, The Stale (Boston, 1909).
CHARLES MACKSEY
Society
The Catholic Church Extension Society
IN THE UNITED STATES
The first active agitation for a church extension or home
mission society for the Catholic Church in North America was
begun in 1904 by an article of the present writer, published in
the "American Ecclesiastical Review" (Philadelphia). This
article was followed by a discussion in the same review,
participated in by several priests, and then by a second article
of the writer's. On 18 October, 1905, the discussion which these
articles aroused took form, and, under the leadership of the
Most Reverend James Edward Quigley, Archbishop of Chicago, a new
society, called The Catholic Church Extension Society of the
United States of America, was organized at a meeting held in the
archbishop's residence at Chicago. The following were present at
that meeting and became the first board of governors of the
society:
+ The Archbishops of Chicago and Santa Fe,
+ The Bishop of Wichita,
+ The present Bishop of Rockford,
+ Reverends Francis C. Kelley, G. P. Jennings, E. P. Graham, E.
A. Kelly, J. T. Roche, B. X. O'Reilly, F. J. Van Antwerp, F.
A. O'Brien;
+ Messrs. M. A. Fanning, Anthony A. Hirst, William P. Breen, C.
A. Plamondon, J. A. Roe, and S. A. Baldus.
All these are still (1911) connected with the church extension
movement, except Archbishop Bourgade of Santa Fe, who has since
died, Reverends E. P. Graham and E. A. O'Brien, and Mr. C. A.
Plamondon, who for one reason or another have found it
impossible to continue in the work. The Archbishop of Chicago
was made chairman of the board, the present writer was elected
president, and Mr. William P. Breen, LL.D., of Fort Wayne,
Indiana, treasurer. Temporary headquarters were established at
Lapeer, Michigan. The second meeting was held in December of the
same year, when the constitution was adopted and the work
formally launched. A charter was granted on 25 December, 1905,
by the State of Michigan to the new society, whose objects were
set forth as follows: "To develop the missionary spirit in the
clergy and people of the Catholic Church in the United States.
To assist in the erection of parish buildings for poor and needy
places. To support priests for neglected or poverty-stricken
districts. To send the comfort of religion to pioneer
localities. In a word, to preserve the faith of Jesus Christ to
thousands of scattered Catholics in every portion of our own
land, especially in the country districts and among immigrants."
In January, 1907, the headquarters of the society were moved to
Chicago, and the president was transferred to that archdiocese.
In April, 1906, the society began the publication of a quarterly
bulletin called "Extension". In May, 1907, this quarterly was
enlarged and changed into a monthly; its circulation has
steadily increased, and at the present time (1911) it has over
one hundred thousand paid subscribers. On 7 June, 1907, the
society received its first papal approval by an Apostolic Letter
of Pius X addressed to the Archbishop of Chicago. In this letter
His Holiness gave unqualified praise to the young organization
and bestowed on its supporters and members many spiritual
favours. On 9 June, 1910, the pope issued a special Brief by
which the society was raised to the dignity of a canonical
institution directly under his own guidance and protection. By
the terms of this Brief, the Archbishop of Chicago is always to
be chancellor of the Society. The president must be appointed by
the Holy Father himself. His term of office is not more than
five years. The board of governors has the right to propose
three names to the Holy See for this office, and to elect,
according to their laws, all other officers of the society. The
Brief also provided for a cardinal protector, living in Rome.
His Holiness named Cardinal Sebastian Martinelli for this
office, and later on appointed the present writer the first
president under the new regulations. The Brief limits the
society's activities to the United States and its possessions. A
similar Brief was issued to the Church Extension Society in
Canada.
Since the organization of the church extension movement, the
American society has expended over half a million dollars in
missionary work. It has made about seven hundred gifts and loans
to poor missions, and has had about five hundred and fifty
chapels built in places where no Catholic Church or chapel
existed previously and the scattered people could attend Mass
only with great difficulty. Both societies have been educating
many students for the missions, and both have circulated much
good Catholic literature. The American society operates a
"chapel car" (donated by one of its members, Ambrose Petry, K.
C. S. G.), which carries a missionary into the remote districts
along railroad lines, preaching missions and encouraging
scattered Catholics to form centres with their own little
chapels as beginnings of future parishes. The Holy Father has
particularly blessed this chapel car work, and has given a gold
medal to the donor of the car and to the society in recognition
of its usefulness. Another chapel car, much larger and better
equipped, is now about to be built. The society has interested
itself very greatly in the missionary work of Porto Rico and the
Philippine Islands, and has achieved substantial results. The
Canadian society has been very active in saving the Ruthenian
Catholics of the Canadian North-West to the Faith, against which
an active war has been waged, especially by the Presbyterians.
It was principally through the publicity given to this activity
by the Canadian Society that the situation was brought to the
attention of the bishops in Canada, who at the first Plenary
Council decided to raise $100,000 for this work. The American
society's first quinquennial report shows splendid progress, and
the present situation of both societies gives promise of great
things to come. A remarkable thing about the church extension
movement is the ready response of the wealthier class of
Catholics in the United States to its appeals. Some very large
donations have been given. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is
raising a fund of $50,000 for chapel building, and the Women's
Catholic Order of Foresters $25,000. The directors intend to
erect a college for the American mission.
The church extension movement, as it exists in the United States
and Canada, has no close parallels in other countries, but is
not unlike the Boniface Association in Germany or the OEuvre of
St. Francis de Sales in France. Membership is divided into
founders ($5000), life members ($1000), fifteen-year members
($100), and Annual Members ($10). There is a Women's Auxiliary
in both societies which now begins to flourish. The American
society has also a branch for children called the "Child
Apostles". From the pennies of the children, chapels are to be
built and each one called the "Holy Innocents"; the children
have just completed (1911) the amount needed for their first
chapel. The present officers of the American society are:
+ His Eminence, Sebastian Cardinal Martinelli, Cardinal
Protector;
+ Most Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D., Chancellor;
+ Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D.D., Vice-Chancellor;
+ Very Rev. Francis C. Kelley, D.D., LL.D., President;
+ Rev. E. B. Ledvina, Vice-President and General Secretary;
+ Rev. E. L. Roe, Director of the Women's Auxiliary and
Vice-President;
+ Rev. W. D. O'Brien, Director of the Child Apostles and
Vice-President;
+ Mr. Leo Doyle, General Counsel and Vice-President;
+ Mr. John A. Lynch, Treasurer.
The members of the executive committee are:
+ Most Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D.;
+ Very Rev. Francis C. Kelley, D.D., LL.D.,
+ Rev. Edward A. Kelly, LL.D.;
+ Messrs. Ambrose Petry, K. C. S. G., Richmond Dean, Warren A.
Cartier, and Edward E. Carry.
On the board of governors are the Archbishops of Chicago, San
Francisco, Milwaukee, Boston, New Orleans, Santa Fe, Oregon
City, with the bishops of Covington, Detroit, Wichita, Duluth,
Brooklyn, Trenton, Mobile, Rockford, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and
Helena, and distinguished priests and laymen.
IN CANADA
The church extension movement was organized in Canada as an
independent society (bearing the name of "The Catholic Church
Extension Society of Canada") by the
+ Most Reverend Donatus Sbarretti, Delegate Apostolic of that
country,
+ Most Rev. Fergus Patrick McEvay, D.D., Archbishop of Toronto,
+ Rev. Dr. A. E. Burke of the Diocese of Charlottetown,
+ Very Rev. Monsignor A. A. Sinnott, secretary of the Apostolic
Delegation,
+ the Rev. Dr. J. T. Kidd, chancellor of Toronto,
+ the Right Honourable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, K. C. M. G.,
Chief Justice of Canada,
+ and the present writer.
The Canadian society at once purchased the "Catholic Register",
a weekly paper, enlarged it, and turned it into the official
organ of the work. The circulation of this paper has increased
marvellously. The new society in Canada received a Brief,
similar to that granted the American society, establishing it
canonically. The same cardinal protector was appointed for both
organizations. The Archbishop of Toronto was made chancellor of
the Canadian society, and Very Rev. Dr. A. E. Burke was
appointed president for the full term of five years. The
officers of the Canadian society are:
+ His Eminence Cardinal Martinelli, Protector;
+ The Archbishop of Toronto (see vacant), Chancellor;
+ Very Rev. A. E. Burke, D.D., LL.D., President;
+ Rev. J. T. Kidd, D.D., Secretary;
+ Rev. Hugh J. Canning, Diocesan Director;
+ The Archbishop of Toronto;
+ Right Hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, K. C. M. G.,
+ and the President, Executive Committee.
FRANCIS C. KELLEY.
Society of Foreign Missions of Paris
Society of Foreign Missions of Paris
The Society of Foreign Missions of Paris was established in
1658-63, its chief founders being Mgr Pallu, Bishop of
Heliopolis, Vicar Apostolic of Tongking, and Mgr Lambert de la
Motte, Bishop of Bertyus, Vicar Apostolic of Conchin-China. Both
bishops left France (1660-62) to go to their respective missions
and as true travellers of Christ they crossed Persia and India
on foot. The object of the new society was and is still the
evangelization of infidel countries, by founding churches and
raising up a native clergy under the jurisdiction of the
bishops. In order that the society might recruit members and
administer its property, a house was established in 1663 by the
priests whom the vicars Apostolic had appointed their agents.
This house, whose directors were to form young priests to the
apostolic life and transmit to the bishops the offerings made by
charity, was, and is still situated in Paris in the Rue de Bac.
Known from the beginning as the seminary of Foreign Missions,
its secured the approval of Alexander VII, and the legal
recognition, still in force, of the French Government.
The nature and organization of the society deserves special
mention. It is not a religious order but a congregation, a
society of secular priests, united as members of the same body,
not by vows but by the rule approved by the Holy See, by
community of object, and the seminary of Foreign Missions, which
is the centre of the society and the common basis which sustains
the other parts. On entering the society the missionaries
promise to devote themselves until death to the service of the
missions, while the society assures them in return, besides the
means of sanctification and perseverance, all necessary temporal
support and assistance. There is no superior general; the
bishops, vicars Apostolic, superiors of missions and board of
directors of the seminary are the superiors of the society. The
directors of the seminary are chosen from among the missionaries
and each group of missions is represented by a director. The
bishops and vicars Apostolic are appointed by the pope, after
nomination by the missionaries, and presentation by the
directors of the seminary. In their missions they depend only on
Propaganda and through it on the pope. No subject aged more than
thirty-five may be admitted to the seminary nor may anyone
become a member of the society before having spent three years
in the mission field. Several points of this rule were
determined from the earliest year of the society's existence,
and others were established by degrees and as experience pointed
out their usefulness. By this rule the society has lived and
according to it its history has been outlined.
This history is difficult, for owing to the length of the
journeys, the infrequent communication, and the poverty of
resources the missions have developed with difficulty. The chief
events of the first period (1658-1700) are: the publication of
the book "Institutions apostoliques", which contains the germ of
the principles of the rule, the foundation of the general
seminary at Juthia, (Siam), the evangelization of Tongking,
Cochin China, Cambodia, and Siam, where more than 40,000
Christians were baptized, the creation of an institute of
Annamite nuns known as "Lovers of the Cross", the establishment
of rules among catechists, the ordination of thirty native
priests. Besides these events of purely religious interest there
were others in the political order which emphasized the
patriotism of these evangelical labourers: through their
initiative a more active trade was established between
Indo-China, the Indies, and France; embassies were sent from
place to place; treaties were signed; a French expedition to
Siam took possession of Bangkok, Mergin, and Jonselang, and
France was on the verge of possessing an Indo-Chinese empire
when the blundering of subalterns ruined an undertaking the
failure of which had an unfortunate influence on the missions.
But the most important work of the vicars Apostolic and the
society is the application of the fruitful principle of the
organization of churches by native priests and bishops.
Thenceforth the apostolate in its progress has has followed this
plan in every part of the world with scrupulous fidelity and
increasing success. In the second half of the eighteenth century
it was charged with the missions which the Jesuits had possessed
in India prior to their suppression in Portugal. Many of the
Jesuits remained there. The missions thereupon assumed new life,
especially at Setchoan, where remarkable bishops, Mgr Pottier
and Mgr Dufresse, gave a strong impulse to evangelical work; and
in Cochin China, where Mgr Pineau de Behaine performed signal
service for the king of that country as his agent in making with
France a treaty, which was the first step towards the splendid
situation of France in Indo-China. At the end of the eighteenth
century the French revolution halted the growth of the society,
which had previously been very rapid. At that time it had six
bishops, a score of missionaries, assisted by 135 native
priests; in the various missions there were nine seminaries with
250 students, and 300,000 Christians. Each year the number of
baptisms rose on a average of 3000 to 3500; that of infant
baptisms in articulo mortis was more than 100,000.
In the nineteenth century the development of the society and its
missions was rapid and considerable. Several causes contributed
to this; chiefly the charity of the Propagation of the Faith and
the Society of the Holy Childhood; each bishop receives annually
1200 francs, each mission has its general needs and works
allowance, which varies according to its importance, and may
amount to from 10,000 to 30,000 francs. The second cause was
persecution. Fifteen missionaries died in prison or were
beheaded during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the
beginning of the nineteenth century; but after that the martyrs
among the missionaries were very numerous. The best known are
Mgr Dufresse, vicar Apostolic of Se-tchoan, beheaded in 1815;
Gagelin, Marchand, Jaccard, Cornay, and Dumoulin-Borie from 1833
to 1838; and from 1850 to 1862 Schoeffler, Venard, Bonnard,
Neron, Chapdelaine, Neel, Cuenot, vicar Apostolic of Eastern
Cochin China. If, besides these, mention were made of the native
priests, catechists, and nuns, in short of all who died for
Christ, we should have a record of one of the bloodiest
holocausts in history. These persecutions were described in
Europe by books, pamphlets, annals, and journals, arousing the
pity of some and the anger of others, and inspiring numerous
young men either with the desire or martyrdom or that of
evangelization. They moved European nations, especially France
and England, to intervene in Indo-China and China, and open up
in these countries an era of liberty and protection till then
unknown. Another cause of the progress of the missionaries was
the ease and frequency of communication in consequence of the
invention of steam and the opening of the Suez Canal. A voyage
could be made safely in one month which formerly required eight
to ten months amid many dangers.
The following statistics of the missions confided to the Society
will show this development at a glance: Missions of Japan and
Korea -- Tokio, Nagasaki, Osaka, Hakodate, Korea, total number
of Catholics, 138,624; churches or chapels, 238; bishops and
missionaries, 166; native priests, 48; catechists, 517;
seminaries, 4; seminarists, 81; communities of men and women,
44, containing 390 persons; schools, 161, with 9024 pupils;
orphanages and work-rooms, 38, with 988 children; pharmacies,
dispensaries, and hospitals, 19. Missions of China and Tibet --
Western, Eastern, and Southern Se-tchoan, Yun-nan, Kouy-tcheou,
Kouang-ton, Kouang-si, Southern Manchuria, Northern Manchuria.
-- Catholics, 272,792; churches or chapels, 1392; bishops and
missionaries, 408; native priests, 191; catechists, 998;
seminaries, 19; seminarists, 661; communities of men and women,
23, with 222 members; schools, 1879, with 31,971 pupils;
orphanages and work-rooms, 132, with 4134 children; pharmacies,
dispensaries, and hospitals, 364. Missions of Eastern Indo-China
-- Tongking, Cochin China, Cambodia -- Catholic population,
632,830; churches or chapels, 2609; bishops and missionaries,
365; native priests, 491; catechists, 1153; seminaries, 14;
seminarists, 1271; communities of men and women, 91, with 2538
persons; schools, 1859, with 58,434 pupils; orphanages and
work-rooms, 106, with 7217 children; pharmacies, dispensaries,
and hospitals, 107. Missions of Western Indo-China -- Siam,
Malacca, Laos, Southern Burma, Northern Burma -- Catholics,
132,226; churches or chapels, 451; bishops and missionaries,
199; native priests, 42; catechists, 242; seminaries, 3;
seminarists, 81; communities of men and women, 47, with 529
members; schools, 320, with 21,306 pupils; orphanages and
work-rooms, 132, with 3757 children; pharmacies, dispensaries,
and hospitals, 86. Missions of India -- Pondicherry, Mysore,
Coimbatore, Kumbakonam. -- Catholics, 324,050; churches or
chapels, 1048; bishops and missionaries, 207; native priests,
67; catechists, 274; seminaries, 4; seminarists, 80; communities
of men and women, 54, with 787 members; schools, 315, with
18,693 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 57, with 2046
children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 41.
In addition to these missionaries actively engaged in mission
work, there are some occupied in the establishments called
common, because they are used by the whole society. Indeed the
development of the society necessitated undertakings which were
not needed in the past. Hence a sanatorium for sick missionaries
has been established at Hong-Kong on the coast of China; another
in India among the Nilgiri mountains, of radiant appearance and
invigorating climate, and a third in France. In thinking of the
welfare of the body, that of the soul was not lost sight of, and
a house of spiritual retreat was founded at Hong-Kong, wither
all the priests of the society may repair to renew their
priestly and apostolic fervour. To this house was added a
printing establishment whence issue the most beautiful works of
the Far East, dictionaries, grammars, books of theology, piety,
Christian doctrine, and pedagogy. Houses of correspondence, or
agencies, were established in the Far East, at Shanghai,
Hong-Kong, Saigon, Singapore, and one at Marseilles, France. The
Seminary of the Foreign Missions which long had only one
section, has for twenty years had two.
LUQUET, Lettres `a l'eveque de Langres sur la cong. des
Missions-Etrangeres (Paris, 1842); LAUNAY, Hist. generale de la
Societe des Missions-Etrangeres (Paris, 1894); Docum. hist sur
la Soci. des Missions-Etrangeres (Paris, 1904); Hist. des
missions de l'Inde (Paris, 1898); Hist. de la mission du Thibet
(Paris, 1903); Hist. des missions de Chine 8 (Paris, 1903-8);
LOUVET, La Cochinchine religieuse (Paris, 1885); DALLET, Hist.
de l'eglise de Coree (Paris, 1874); Marnas, La religion de Jesus
ressuscite au Japon (Paris, 1896).
A. LAUNAY
The Jesuits (The Society of Jesus)
The Society of Jesus
(Company of Jesus, Jesuits)
See also DISTINGUISHED JESUITS, JESUIT APOLOGETIC, EARLY JESUIT
GENERALS, and four articles on the history of the Society:
PRE-1750, 1750-1773, 1773-1814, and 1814-1912.
The Society of Jesus is a religious order founded by Saint
Ignatius Loyola. Designated by him "The Company of Jesus" to
indicate its true leader and its soldier spirit, the title was
Latinized into "Societas Jesu" in the Bull of Paul III approving
its formation and the first formula of its Institute ("Regimini
militantis ecclesia", 27 Sept., 1540). The term "Jesuit" (of
fifteenth-century origin, meaning one who used too frequently or
appropriated the name of Jesus), was first applied to the
society in reproach (1544-52), and was never employed by its
founder, though members and friends of the society in time
accepted the name in its good sense. The Society ranks among
religious institutes as a mendicant order of clerks regular,
that is, a body of priests organized for apostolic work,
following a religious rule, and relying on alms for their
support [Bulls of Pius V, "Dum indefessae", 7 July, 1571;
Gregory XIII, "Ascendente Domino", 25 May, 1585].
As has been explained under the title "Ignatius Loyola", the
founder began his self-reform, and the enlistment of followers,
entirely prepossessed with the idea of the imitation of Christ,
and without any plan for a religious order or purpose of
attending to the needs of the days. Unexpectedly prevented from
carrying out this idea, he offered his services and those of
this followers to the pope, "Christ upon Earth", who at once
employed him in such works as were most pressing at the moment.
It was only after this and just before the first companions
broke to go at the pope's command to various countries, that the
resolution to found an order was taken, and that Ignatius was
commissioned to draw up Constitutions. This he did slowly and
methodically; first introducing rules and customs and seeing how
they worked. He did not codify them for the first six years.
Then three years were given to formulating laws, the wisdom of
which had been proven by experiment. In the last six years of
the Saint's life the Constitutions so composed were finally
revised and put into practice everywhere. This sequence of
events explains at once how the society, though devoted to the
following of Christ, as though there were nothing else in the
world to care for, is also excellently adapted to the needs of
the day. It began to attend to them before it began to
legislate; and its legislation was the codification of those
measures which had been proved by experience to be apt to
preserve its preliminary religious principle among men actually
devoted to the requirements of the Church in days not unlike our
own.
The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of
opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation
nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of
the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the
service of the Church, he had probably not even heard of the
names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the
conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after
the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain,
must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard. The name
"Societas Jesu" had been born by a military order approved and
recommended by Pius II in 1450, the purpose of which was to
fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian
faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan
lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at
the special request of the pope and to Germany, the cradle-land
of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial
ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labours of
the Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada,
Central and South America were as important as their activity in
Christian countries. As the object of the society was the
propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere,
the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of
Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the
Counter-Reformation; the re-conquest of southern and western
Germany and Austria for the Church, and the preservation of the
Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to
their exertions.
INSTITUTES, CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATION
The official publication which constitutes all the regulations
of the Society, its codex legum, is entitled "Institutum
Societas Jesu" of which the latest edition was issued at Rome
and Florence 1869-91 (for full biography see Sommervogel, V,
75-115; IX, 609-611; for commentators see X, 705-710). The
Institute contains:
+ The special Bulls and other pontifical documents approving the
Society and canonically determining or regulating its various
works, and its ecclesiastical standing and relations. --
Besides those already mentioned, other important Bulls are
those of: Paul III, "Injunctum nobis", 14 March, 1543; Julius
III, "Exposcit debitum", 21 July, 1550; Pius V, "AEquum
reputamus", 17 January, 1565; Pius VII, "Solicitudo omnium
ecclesiarum", 7 August, 1814, Leo XIII, "Dolemus inter alia",
13 July, 1880.
+ The Examen Generale and Constitutions. The Examen contains
subjects to be explained to postulants and points on which
they are to be examined. The Constitutions are divided into
ten parts:
1. admission;
2. dismissal;
3. novitiate;
4. scholastic training;
5. profession and other grades of membership;
6. religious vows and other obligations as observed by the
Society;
7. missions and other ministries;
8. congregations, local and general assemblies as a means of
union and uniformity;
9. the general and chief superiors;
10. the preservation of the spirit of the Society.
Thus far in the Institute all is by Saint Ignatius, who has
also added "Declarations" of various obscure parts. Then come:
+ Decrees of General Congregations, which have equal authority
with the Constitutions;
+ Rules, general and particular, etc.;
+ Formulae or order of business for the congregations;
+ Ordinations of generals, which have the same authority as
rules;
+ Instructions, some for superiors, others for those engaged in
the missions or other works of the Society;
+ Industriae, or special counsels for superiors;
+ The Book of the Spiritual Exercises; and
+ the Ratio Studiorum, which have directive force only.
The Constitutions as drafted by Ignatius and adopted finally by
the first congregation of the Society, 1558, have never been
altered. Ill-informed writers have stated that Lainez, the
second general, made considerable changes in the saint's
conception of the order; but Ignatius' own later recension of
the Constitutions, lately reproduced in facsimile (Rome, 1908),
exactly agree with the text of the Constitutions now in force,
and contains no word by Lainez, not even in the declarations, or
glosses added to the text, which are all the work of Ignatius.
The text in use in the Society is a Latin version prepared under
the direction of the third congregation, and subjected to a
minute comparison with the Spanish original preserved in the
Society's archives, during the fourth congregation (1581).
These Constitutions were written after long deliberation between
Ignatius and his companions in the founding of the Society, as
at first it seemed to them that they might continue their work
without the aid of a special Rule. They were the fruit of long
experience and of serious meditation and prayer. Throughout they
are inspired by an exalted spirit of charity and zeal for souls.
They contain nothing unreasonable. To appreciate them, however,
requires a knowledge of cannon law applied to monastic life and
also of their history in the light of the times for which they
were framed. Usually those who find fault with them either have
never read them or else have misinterpreted them. Monod for
instance, in his introduction to Boehmer's essay on the Jesuits
("Les jesuites", Paris, 1910, p. 13, 14) recalls how Michelet
mistranslated the words of the Constitutions, p. VI, c. 5,
obligationem ad peccatum, and made it appear that they require
obedience even to the commission of sin, as if the text were
obligatio ad peccandum, where the obvious meaning and purpose of
the text is precisely to show that the transgression of the
rules is not in itself sinful. Monod enumerates such men as
Arnauld, Wolf, Lange, Ranke in the first edition of his
"History", Hausser and Droysen, Philippson and Charbonnel, as
having repeated the same error, although it has been refuted
frequently since 1824, particularly by Gieseler, and corrected
by Ranke in his second edition. Whenever the Constitutions
enjoin what is already a serious moral obligation, or superiors,
by virtue of their authority, impose a grave obligation,
transgression is sinful; but this is true of such transgressions
not only in the society but out of it. Moreover such commands
are rarely given by the superiors and only when the good of the
individual member or the common good imperatively demands it.
The rule throughout is one of love inspired by wisdom, and must
be interpreted in the spirit of charity which animates it. This
is especially true of its provisions for the affectionate
relations of members with superiors and with one another, by the
manifestation of conscience, more or less practiced in every
religious order, and by mutual correction when this may be
necessary. It also applies to the methods employed to ascertain
the qualification of members for various offices or ministries.
The chief authority is vested in the general congregation, which
elects the general, and could, for certain grave causes, depose
him. This body could also (although there has never yet been an
occasion for so doing) add new Constitutions and abrogate old
ones. Usually this congregation is convened on the occasion of
the death of a general, in order to elect a successor, and to
make provisions for the government and welfare of the Society.
It may also be called at other times for grave reasons. It
consists of the general, when alive, and his assistants, the
provincials, and two deputies from each province or territorial
division of the society elected by the superiors and older
professed members. Thus authority in the Society eventually
rests on a democratic basis. But as there is no definite time
for calling the general congregation which in fact rarely occurs
except to elect a new general, the exercise of authority is
usually in the hands of the general, in whom is vested the
fullness of administrative power, and of spiritual authority. He
can do anything within the scope of the Constitutions, and can
even dispense with them for good causes, though he cannot change
them. He resides at Rome, and has a council of assistants, five
in number at present, one each for Italy, France, Spain, and the
countries of Spanish origin, one for Germany, Austria, Poland,
Belgium, Hungary, Holland, and one for English-speaking
countries--England, Ireland, United States, Canada, and British
colonies (except India). These usually hold office until the
death of the general. Should the general through age or
infirmity become incapacitated for governing the Society, a
vicar is chosen by a general congregation to act for him. At his
death he names one so to act until the congregation can meet and
elect his successor.
Next to him in order of authority comes the provincials, the
heads of the Society, whether for an entire country, as England,
Ireland, Canada, Belgium, Mexico, or, where these units are too
large or too small to make convenient provinces they may be
subdivided or joined together. Thus there are now four provinces
in the United States: California, Maryland-New York, Missouri,
New Orleans. In all there are now twenty-seven provinces. The
provincial is appointed by the general, with ample
administrative faculties. He too has a council of "counselors"
and an "admonitor" appointed by the general. Under the
provincial come the local superiors. Of these, rectors of
colleges, provosts of professed houses, and masters of novices
are appointed by the general; the rest by the provincial. To
enable the general to make and control so many appointments, a
free and ample correspondence is kept up, and everyone has the
right of private communication with him. No superior, except the
general, is named for life. Usually provincials and rectors of
colleges hold office for three years.
Members of the society fall into four classes:
+ Novices (whether received as lay brothers for the domestic and
temporal services of the order, or as aspirants to the
priesthood), who are trained in the spirit and discipline of
the order, prior to making the religious vows.
+ At the end of two years the novices make simple vows, and, if
aspirants to the priesthood, become formed scholastics; they
remain in this grade as a rule from two to fifteen years, in
which time they will have completed all their studies, pass
(generally) a certain period in teaching, receive the
priesthood, and go through a third year of novitiate or
probation (the tertianship). According to the degree of
discipline and virtue, and to the talents they display (the
latter are normally tested by the examination for the Degree
of Doctor of Theology) they may now become formed coadjutors
or professed members of the order.
+ Formed coadjutors, whether formed lay brothers or priests,
make vows which, though not solemn, are perpetual on their
part; while the Society, on its side binds itself to them,
unless they should commit some grave offense.
+ The professed are all priests, who make, besides the three
usual solemn vows of religion, a fourth, of special obedience
to the pope in the matter of missions, undertaking to go
wherever they are sent, without even requiring money for the
journey. They also make certain additional, but non-essential,
simple vows, in the matter of poverty, and the refusal of
external honours. The professed of the four vows constitute
the kernel of the Society; the other grades are regarded as
preparatory, or as subsidiary to this. The chief offices can
be held by the professed alone; and though they may be
dismissed, they must be received back, if willing to comply
with the conditions that may be prescribed. Otherwise they
enjoy no privileges, and many posts of importance, such as the
government of colleges, may be held by members of other
grades. For special reasons some are occasionally professed of
three vows and they have certain but not all the privileges of
the other professed.
All live in community alike, as regards food, apparel, lodging,
recreation, and all are alike bound by the rules of the Society.
There are no secret Jesuits. Like other orders, the Society can,
if it will, make its friends participators in its prayers, and
in the merits of its good works; but it cannot make them members
of the order, unless they live the life of the order. There is
indeed the case of St. Francis Borgia, who made some of the
probations in an unusual way, outside the houses of the order.
But this was in order that he might be able to conclude certain
business matters and other affairs of state, and thus appear the
sooner in public as a Jesuit, not that he might remain
permanently outside the common life.
Novitiate and Training
Candidates for admission come not only from the colleges
conducted by the Society, but from other schools. Frequently
post-graduate or professional students, and those who have
already begun their career in business or professional life, or
even in the priesthood, apply for admission. Usually the
candidate applies in person to the provincial, and if he
considers him a likely subject he refers him for examination to
four of the more experienced fathers. They question him about
the age, health, position, occupation of his parents, their
religion and good character, their dependence on his services;
about his own health, obligations such as debts, or other
contractual relations; his studies, qualifications, moral
character, personal motives as well as the external influences
that may have lead him to seek admission. The results of their
questioning and of their own observation they report severally
to the provincial, who weighs their opinions carefully before
deciding for or against the applicant. Any notable bodily or
mental defect in the candidate, serious indebtedness or other
obligation, previous membership in another religious order even
for a day, indicating instability of vocation, unqualifies for
admission. Undue influence, particularly if exercised by members
of the order, would occasion stricter scrutiny that usual into
the personal motives of the applicant.
Candidates may enter at any time, but usually there is a fixed
day each years for their admission, toward the close of the
summer holidays, in order that all may begin their training, or
probation, together. They spend the first ten days considering
the manner of life they are to adopt, and its difficulties, the
rules of the order, the obedience required of its members. They
then make a brief retreat, meditating on what they have learned
about the Society and examining their own motives and hopes for
perserverance in the new mode of life. If all be satisfactory to
them and to the superior or director who has charge of them,
they are admitted as novices, wear the clerical costume (as
there is no special Jesuit habit) and begin in earnest the life
of members in the Society. They rise early, make a brief visit
to the chapel, a meditation on some subject selected the night
before, assist at Mass, review their meditation, breakfast, and
then prepare for the day's routine. This consists of manual
labor in or out of doors, reading books on spiritual topics,
ecclesiastical history, biography, particularly of men or women
distinguished for zeal and enterprise in missionary or
educational fields. There is a daily conference by the master of
the novices on some detail of the Institute, notes of which all
are required to make, so as to be ready, when asked, to repeat
the salient points.
Wherever it is possible some are submitted to certain tests of
their vocation or usefulness; to teaching catechism in the
village churches; to attendance on the sick in hospitals; to
going about on a pilgrimage or missionary journey without money
or other provision. As soon as possible, all make the spiritual
exercises for 30 days. This is really the chief test of a
vocation, as it is also in epitome the main work of the two
years of the novitiate, and for that matter of the entire life
of a Jesuit. On these exercises the Constitutions, the life, and
activity of the Society are based, so they are really the chief
factor in forming the character of a Jesuit. In accordance with
the ideals set forth in these exercises, of disinterested
conformity with God's will, and of personal love of Jesus
Christ, the novice is trained diligently in the meditative study
of the truths of religion, in the habit of self-knowledge, in
the constant scrutiny of his motives and of the actions inspired
by them, in the correction of every form of self-deceit,
illusion, plausible pretext, and in the education of his will,
particularly in making choice of what seems best after careful
deliberation and without self-seeking. Deeds, not words, are
insisted upon as proof of genuine service, and a mechanical,
emotional, or fanciful piety is not tolerated. As the novice
gradually thus becomes master of his will, he grows more and
more capable of offering to God the reasonable service enjoined
by St. Paul, and seeks to follow the divine will, as manifested
in Jesus Christ, by His vicar on earth, by the bishops appointed
to rule His Church, by his more immediate or religious
superiors, and by the civil powers rightfully exercising
authority. This is what is meant by Jesuit obedience, the
characteristic virtue of the order, such a sincere respect for
authority as to accept its decisions and comply with them, not
merely by outward performance but in all sincerity with the
conviction that compliance is best, and that the command
expresses for the time the will of God, as nearly as it can be
ascertained.
The noviceship lasts two years. On its completion the novice
makes the usual vows of religion, the simple vow of chastity in
the Society having the force of a diriment impediment to
matrimony. During the noviceship but a brief time daily is
devoted to reviewing previous studies. The noviceship over, the
scholastic members, i.e., those who are to become priests in the
Society, follow a special course in classics and mathematics
lasting two years, usually in the same house with the novices.
Then, in another house and neighbourhood, three years are given
to the study of philosophy, about five years to teaching in one
or other of the public colleges of the Society, four years to
the study of theology, priestly orders being conferred after the
third, and finally, one year more to another probation or
noviceship, intended to help the young priest renew his spirit
of piety and to learn how to utilize to the best of his ability
all the learning and experience he has required. In exceptional
cases, as in that of a priest who has finished his studies
before entering the order, allowance is made and the training
periods need not last over ten years, a good part of which is
spent in active ministry.
The object of the order is not limited to practicing any one
class of good works, however laudable (as preaching, chanting
office, doing penance, etc.), but to study, in the manner of the
Spiritual Exercises, what Christ would have done, if He were
living in our circumstances, and to carry out that ideal. Hence
elevation and largeness of aim. Hence the motto of the Society,
"Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam". Hence the selection of the virtue of
obedience as the characteristic of the order, to be ready for
any call, and to keep unity in every variety of work. Hence, by
easy sequence, the omission of office in choir, of a special
distinctive habit, of unusual penances. Where the Protestant
reformers aimed at reorganizing the church at large according to
their particular conceptions, Ignatius began with interior
self-reform; and after that had been thoroughly established,
then the earnest preaching of self-reform to others. That done,
the church would not, and did not, fail to reform herself. Many
religious distinguished themselves as educators before the
Jesuits; but the Society was the first order which enjoined by
its very Constitutions devotion to the cause of education. It
was, in this sense, the first "teaching order".
The ministry of the Society consists chiefly in preaching;
teaching catechism, especially to children; administering the
sacraments especially penance and the Eucharist; conducting
missions in the parishes on the lines of the Spiritual
Exercises; directing those who wish to follow those exercises in
houses of retreat, seminaries or convents; taking care of
parishes or collegiate churches; organizing pious
confraternities, sodalities, unions of prayer, Bona Mors
associations in their own and other parishes; teaching in
schools of every grade--academic; seminary, university; writing
books, pamphlets, periodical articles; going on foreign missions
among uncivilized peoples. In liturgical functions the Roman
Rite is followed. The proper exercise of all these functions is
provided for by rules carefully framed by the general
congregations or by the generals. All these regulations command
the greatest respect on the part of every member. In practice
the superior for the time being is the living rule--not that he
can alter or abrogate any rule, but because he must interpret
and determine its application. In this fact and in its
consequences, the Society differs from every religious order
antecedent to its foundation; to this principally, it owes its
life, activity, and power to adapt its Institutes to modern
conditions without need of change in that instrument or of
reform in the body itself.
The story of the foundation of the Society is told in the
article Ignatius Loyola. Briefly, after having inspired his
companions Peter Faber, Francis Xavier, James Lainez, Alonso
Sameron, Nicolas Bobadilla, Simon Rodriquez, Claude Le Jay, Jean
Codure, and Paschase Brouet with a desire to dwell in the Holy
Land imitating the life of Christ, they first made vows of
poverty and chastity at Montmartre, Paris, on 15 August, 1534,
adding a vow to go to the Holy Land after two years. When this
was found to be inpracticable, after waiting another year, they
offered their services to the pope, Paul III. Fully another year
was passed by some in university towns in Italy, by others at
Rome, where, after encountering much opposition and slander, all
met together to agree on a mode of life by which they might
advance in evangelical perfection and help others in the same
task. The first formula of the Institute was submitted to the
pope and approved of viva voce, 3 September 1539, and formally,
27 September, 1540.
Related Articles
+ Jesuit Apologetic
+ Distinguished Jesuits
+ History of the Jesuits Before the Suppression
+ Jesuit Generals Prior to the Suppression
+ History of the Jesuits During the Suppression (1750-1773)
+ History of the Jesuits During the Interim (1773-1814)
+ History of the Jesuits After the Restoration (1814-1912)
Constitutions.--Corpus institutorum Societatis Jesu (Antwerp,
Prague, Rome, 1635, 1702, 1705, 1707, 1709, 1869-70; Paris,
partial edition, 1827-38); Gagliardi, De cognitione instituti
(1841); Lancicius, De praestantia instit. Soc. Jesu (1644);
Nadal, Scholia in constitutiones (1883); Suarez, Tract. de
religione Soc. Jesu (1625); Humphrey, The Religious State
(London, 1889), a digest of the treatise of Suarez; Oswald,
Comment. in decem partes consit. Soc. Jesu (3rd ed., Brussels,
1901); Rules of the Society of Jesus (Washington, 1939; London
1863).
J.H. POLLEN
Jesuit Generals Prior To the Suppression (1541-1773)
Jesuit Generals Prior to the Suppression of the Society (1541-1773)
(1) St. Ignatius Loyola
(19 April 1541-31 July, 1556). The society spread rapidly, and
at the time of St. Ignatius' death had twelve provinces: Italy,
Sicily, Portugal, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia, Upper Germany,
Lower Germany, France, India (including Japan), Brazil, and
Ethiopia, the last-mentioned province lasting but a short time.
It met with opposition at the University of Paris; while in
Spain it was severely attacked by Melchior Cano.
(2) James Lainez
(2 July, 1558-19 January, 1565). Lainez served two years as
vicar-general, and was chosen general in the first general
congregation, retarded until 1558 (19 June-10 Sept.) owing to
the unfortunate war between Paul IV and Philip II. Paul IV gave
orders that the Divine Office should be recited in choir, and
also that the generalate should only last three years. The pope
died on 18 August, 1559, and his orders were not renewed by his
successor, Pius IV; indeed he refused Fr. Lainez leave to resign
when his first triennium closed. Through Pius' nephew, St.
Charles Borromeo, the Society now received many privileges and
openings, and progress was rapid. Father Lainez himself was sent
to the "Colloquy of Poissy", and to the Council of Trent
(1563-4), St. Francis Borgia being left in Rome as his
vicar-general. At the death of Lainez the Society numbered 3500
members in 18 provinces and 130 houses.
(3) St. Francis Borgia
(2 July 1565-1 October, 1572). One of the most delicate tasks of
his government was to negotiate with Pope St. Pius V, who
desired to reintroduce the singing of Office. This was in fact
begun in May, 1569, but only in professed houses, and it was not
to interfere with other work. Pius also ordained (Christmas,
1566) that no candidate for any religious order for the
priesthood should be ordained until after his profession; and
this indirectly caused much trouble to the Society, with its
distinct grades of professed and non-professed priests. All
therefore had to be professed of three vows, until Gregory XIII
(December, 1572) allowed the original practice to be restored.
Under his administration the foreign missionary work of the
order greatly increased and prospered. New missions were opened
by the Society in Florida, Mexico, and Peru.
(4) Everard Mercurian
Belgian (23 April, 1573-1 August 1580). Fr. Mercurian was born
in 1514 in the village of Marcour (Luxembourg), whence his name,
which he signed Everard de Marcour. He became the first
non-Spanish general of the Society. Pope Gregory XIII, without
commanding, had expressed his desire for this change. This,
however, caused great dissatisfaction and opposition among a
number of the Spanish and Portuguese members, which came to a
crisis during the generalate of Father Mercurian's successor,
Father Claudius Acquaviva. Father Tolet was entrusted with the
task of obtaining the submission of Michael Baius to the
decision of the Holy See; he succeeded, but his success later
served to draw on the Society the hatred of the Jansenists.
Father Mercurian, when general, brought the rules to their final
form, compiling the "Summary of the Constitutions" from the
manuscripts of St. Ignatius, and drawing up the "Common Rules"
of the Society, and the particular rules of each office. He was
greatly interested in the foreign missions and established the
Marionite and English missions, and sent to the latter Blessed
Edmund Campion and Father Robert Persons. Father Everard
Mercurian passed thirty-two years in the Society, and died at
the age of sixty-six. At that time the Society numbered 5000
members in eighteen provinces.
(5) Claudius Acquaviva (Aquaviva)
Neapolitan (19 February, 1581-31 January, 1615). (For the
disputations on grace, see Congregatio de Auxiliis). After
Ignatius, Acquaviva was perhaps the ablest ruler of the Society.
As a legislator he reduced to its present form the final parts
of the Institute, and the Ratio Studiorum (q.v.). He had also to
contend with extraordinary obstacles both from without and
within. The Society was banished from France and from Venice;
there were grave differences with the King of Spain, with Sixtus
V, with the Dominican theologians; and within the Society the
rivalry between Spaniard and Italian led to unusual
complications and to the calling of two extraordinary general
congregations (fifth and sixth). The origin of these troubles is
perhaps eventually to be sought in the long wars of religion,
which gradually died down after the canonical absolution of
Henry IV, 1595 (in which Fathers Georges, Toledo, and Possevinus
played important parts). The fifth congregation in 1593
supported Acquaviva steadily against the opposing parties, and
the sixth, in 1608, completed the union of opinions. Paul V in
1606 re-confirmed the Institute, which from now onwards may be
considered to have won a stable position in the Church at large,
until the epoch of the Suppression and the Revolution. Missions
were established in Canada, Chile, Paraguay, the Philippine
Islands, and China. At Father Acquaviva's death the Society
numbered 13,112 members in 32 provinces and 559 houses.
(6) Mutius Vitelleschi
Roman (15 November, 1615-9 February, 1645). His generalate was
one of the most pacific and progressive, especially in France
and Spain; but the Thirty Years' War worked havoc in Germany.
The canonization of Sts. Ignatius and Francis Xavier (1622) and
the first centenary of the Society (1640) were celebrated with
great rejoicings. The great mission of Paraguay began, that of
Japan was stamped out in blood. England was raised in 1619 to
the rank of a province of the order, having been a mission until
then. Missions were established in Tibet (1624), Tonkin (1627),
and Maranhao (1640).
(7) Vincent Caraffa
Neapolitan (7 January 1646-8 June 1649). A few days before
Father Caraffa's election as general, Pope Innocent X published
a brief "Prospero felicique statui", in which he ordered a
general congregation of the Society to be held every nine years;
it was ordained also that no office in the Society except the
position of master of novices should be held for more than three
years. The latter regulation was revoked by Innocent's
successor, Alexander VII on 1 January, 1658; and the former by
Benedict XIV in 1746 by the Bull "Devotam", many dispensations
having been granted in the mean time.
(8) Francis Piccolomini of Sienna
(21 December, 1649-17 June, 1651). Before his election as
general he had been professor of philosophy at the Roman
college; he died at the age of sixty-nine, having passed
fifty-three years in the Society.
(9) Aloysius Gottifredi
Roman (21 January, 1652-12 March 1652). Father Gottifredi died
at the house of the professed Fathers, Rome, within two months
after his election, and before the Fathers assembled for the
election and congregation had concluded their labour. He had
been a professor of theology and rector at the Roman College,
and later secretary of the Society under Father Mutius
Vitelleschi.
(10) Goschwin Nickel
German (b. at Juelich in 1582; 17 March, 1652-31 July, 1664).
During these years the struggle with Jansenism was growing more
and more heated. The great controversy on the Chinese Rites
(1645) was continued (see Ricci, Mateo). Owing to his great age,
Father Nickel obtained from the eleventh congregation the
appointment of John Paul Oliva as vicar-general (on 7 June,
1661), with the approval of Alexander VII.
(11) John Paul Oliva
Genoese (elected vicar cum jure successionis on 7 June, 1661) 31
July, 1664-26 November 1681. During his generalate, the Society
established a mission in Persia, which at first met with great
success, four hundred thousand converts being made within
twenty-five years; in 1736, however, the mission was destroyed
by violent persecution. Father Oliva's generalate occurred
during one of the most difficult periods in the history of the
Society, as the controversy on Jansenism, the droit de regale,
and moral theology were being carried on by the opponents of the
Society with the greatest acrimony and violence. Father John
Paul Oliva laboured earnestly to keep up the Society's high
reputation for learning, and in a circular letter sent to all
the houses of study urged the cultivation of the oriental
languages.
(12) Charles de Noyelle
Belgian, 5 July 1682-12 December, 1868. Father de Noyelle was
born at Brussels on 28 July, 1615; so great was his reputation
for virtue and prudence that at his election he received
unanimous vote of the congregation. He had been assistant for
the Germanic provinces for more than 20 years; he died at the
age of seventy, after fifty years spent in the Society. Just
about the time of his election, the dispute between Louis XIV of
France and Pope Innocent XI had culminated in the publication of
the "Declaration du clerge de France" (19 March, 1682). This
placed the Society in a difficult position in France, as its
spirit of devotion to the papacy was not in harmony with the
spirit of the "Declaration". It required all the ingenuity and
ability of Pere La Chaise and Father de Noyelle to avert a
disaster. Innocent XI was dissatisfied with the position the
Society adopted, and threatened to suppress the order,
proceeding even so far as to forbid the reception of novices.
(13) Thyrsus Gonzalez
Spaniard, 6 July, 1687-27 October, 1705. He interfered in the
controversy between Probabilism (q.v.) and Probabiliorism,
attacking the former doctrine with energy in a book published at
Dilligen in 1691. As Probabilism was on the whole in favour in
the Society, this caused discussions which were not quieted
until the fourteenth congregation, 1696, when, with the pope's
approval, liberty was left to both sides. Father Gonzalez in his
earlier days had laboured with great fruit as a missionary, and
after his election as general encouraged the work of popular
home missions. His treatise "De infallibitate Romani pontificis
in definiendis fidei et morum controversiis" which was a
vigorous attack on the doctrines laid down in the "Declaration
du clerge de France" was published at Rome in 1689 by order of
Pope Innocent XI; however, Innocent's successor, Alexander VIII,
caused the work to be withdrawn, as its effects had been to
render the relations between France and the Holy See more
difficult. Father Gonzalez laboured earnestly to spread devotion
to the saints of the Society; he died at the age of eighty-four,
having passed sixty-three years in the order, during nineteen of
which he was general.
(14) Michelangelo Tamburini
Of Modena, 31 January, 1706-28 February, 1730. The long reign of
Louis XIV, so favorable to the Jesuits in many respects, saw the
beginning of those hostile movements which were to lead to the
Suppression. The king's autocratic powers, his Gallicanism, his
insistence on the repression of the Jansenists by force, the way
he compelled the Society to take his part in the quarrel with
Rome about the regale (1684-8), led to a false situation in
which the parts might be reversed, when the all-powerful
sovereign might turn against them, or by standing neutral leave
them the prey of others. This was seen at his death, 1715, when
the regent banished the once influential father confessor Le
Tellier, while the gallicanizing archbishop of Paris, Cardinal
de Noailles, laid them under an interdict (1716-29). Father
Tamburini who before his election as general had taught
philosophy and theology for twelve years and had been chosen by
Cardinal Renauld d'Este as his theologian; he had also been
provincial of Venice, secretary-general of the Society, and
vicar-general. During the disputes concerning the Chinese Rites
(q.v.), the Society was accused of resisting the orders of the
Holy See. Father Tamborini protested energetically against this
calumny, and when in 1711 the procurators of all the provinces
of the Society were assembled in Rome, he had them sign a
protest which he dedicated to Pope Clement XI. The destruction
of Port Royal and the condemnation of the errors of Quesnel by
the Bull "Unigenitus" (1711) testified to the accuracy of the
opinions adopted by the Society in these disputes. Father
Tamburini procured the canonization of Saints Aloysius Gonzaga
and Stanislaus Kostka, and the beautification of St. John
Francis Regis. During his generalate the mission of Paraguay
reached its highest degree of success; in one year no fewer than
77 missionaries left for it; the missionary labors of St.
Francis de Geronimo and Blessed Anthony Baldinucci in Italy, and
Venerable Manuel Padial in Spain, enhanced the reputation of the
Society. Father Tamburini died at the age of 82, having spent
sixty-five years in religion. At the time of his death, the
Society contained 37 provinces, 24 houses of professed Fathers,
612 colleges, 59 novitiates, 340 residences, 200 mission
stations; in addition, one hundred and fifty-seven seminaries
were directed by the Jesuits.
(15) Francis Retz
Austrian (born at Prague in 1673) 7 March, 1730-19 November
1750. Father Retz was elected general unanimously, his able
administration contributed much to the welfare of the Society;
he obtained the canonization of St. John Francis Regis. Father
Retz's generalate was perhaps the quietest in the history of the
order. At the time of his death, the Society contained 39
provinces, 24 houses of professed Fathers, 669 colleges, 61
novitiates, 335 residences, 273 mission stations 176 seminaries,
and 22,589 members of whom 11,293 were priests.
(16) Ignatius Viscanti
Milanese, 4 July, 1751-4 May 1755. It was during this generalate
that the accusations of trading were first made against Father
Antonine de La Valette, who was recalled from Martinique in 1753
to justify his conduct. Shortly before dying, Fr. Viscanti
allowed him to return to his mission, where the failure of his
commercial operations, somewhat later, gave an opportunity to
the enemies of the Society in France to begin a warfare that
ended only with the Suppression (see below). Trouble with Pombal
also began at this time. Father Visconti died at the age of
seventy-three.
(17) Aloysius Centurioni
Genoese, 30 November, 1755-2 October 1757. During his brief
generalate, the most noteworthy facts were the persecution by
Pombal of the Portuguese Jesuits and the troubles caused by
Father de La Valette's commercial activities and disasters.
Father Centurioni died at Castel Gandolfo, at the age of
seventy-two.
(18) Lorenzo Ricci
Florentine, 21 May, 1758 until the Suppression in 1773. In 1759,
the Society contained 41 provinces, 270 mission posts, and 171
seminaries. Father Ricci founded the Bavarian province of the
order in 1770. His generalate saw the slow death agony of the
Society; within two years the Portuguese, Brazilian and East
Indian provinces and missions were destroyed by Pombal; close to
two thousand members of the Society were cast destitute on the
shores of Italy and imprisoned in fetid dungeons in Portugal.
France, Spain, and the two Sicilies followed in the footsteps of
Pombal. The Bull, "Apostolicum" of Clement XIII in favor of the
Society produced no fruit. Clement XIV at last yielded to the
demand for the extinction of the Society. Father Ricci was
seized, and cast a prisoner into the Castel San Angelo, were he
was treated as a criminal until death ended his sufferings on 24
November, 1775. In 1770, the Society contained 42 provinces, 24
houses of professed Fathers, 669 colleges, 61 novitiates, 335
residences, 273 mission stations, and about 23,000 members.
J.H. POLLEN
Pre-1773 History of the Jesuits
History of the Jesuits Before the 1773 Suppression
Italy
The history of the Jesuits in Italy was generally very peaceful.
The only serious disturbances were those arising from the
occasional quarrels of the civil governments with the
ecclesiastical powers. St. Ignatius" first followers were
immediately in great request to instruct the faithful, and to
reform the clergy, monasteries, and convents. Though there was
little organized or deep-seated mischief, the amount of lesser
evils was immense; the possibility here and there of a
catastrophe was evident. While the preachers and missionaries
evangelized the country, colleges were established at Padua,
Venice, Naples, Bologna, Florence, Parma, and other cities. On
20 April 1555, the University of Ferrara addressed to the
Sorbonne a most remarkable testimony in favor of the order. St.
Charles Borromeo was, after the popes, perhaps the most generous
of all the patrons, and they freely put their best talents at
his disposal. (For the difficulties about his seminary and with
Fr. Guillo Mazarino, see Sylbain, "Hist. de S. Charles", iii,
53.) Juan de Vega, ambassador of Charles V at Rome, had learnt
to know and esteem Ignatius there, and when he was appointed
Viceroy of Sicily he brought Jesuits with him. A college was
opened at Messina; success was marked, and its rules and methods
were afterwards copied in other colleges. After fifty years the
Society counted in Italy 86 houses and 2550 members. The chief
trouble in Italy occurred in Venice at 1606, when Paul V laid
the city under interdict for serious breaches of ecclesiastical
immunities. The Jesuits and some other religious retired from
the city, and the Senate, inspired by Paolo Sarpi, the
disaffected friar, passed a decree of perpetual banishment
against them. In effect, though peace was made ere long with the
pope, it was fifty years before the Society could return. Italy,
during the first two centuries of the Society was still the most
cultured country in Europe, and the Italian Jesuits enjoyed a
high reputation for learning and letters. The elder Segneri is
considered the first of Italian preachers, and there are a
number of others of the first class. Maffei, Torellino, Strada,
Palavicino, and Bartoli (q.v.) have left historical works which
are still highly prized. Between Bellarmine (d. 1621) and
Zaccharia (d. 1795) Italian Jesuits of note in theology,
controversy, and subsidiary sciences are reckoned by the score.
They also claim a large proportion of the saints, martyrs,
generals, and missionaries. (See also Belecius; Bolgeni;
Boscovich; Possevinus; Scaramelli; Viva.) Italy was divided into
five provinces, with the following figures for the year 1749
(shortly before the beginning of the movement for the
suppression of the Society); Rome 848; Naples 667; Sicily 775;
Venice 707; Milan 625; total 3622 members, about one-half of
whom were priests, with 178 houses.
Spain
Though the majority of Ignatius' companions were Spaniards, he
did not gather them together in Spain, and the first Jesuits
paid only passing visits there. In 1544, however, Father Aroaz,
cousin of St. Ignatius and a very eloquent preacher, came with
six companions, and then their success was rapid. On 1
September, 1547, Ignatius established the province of Spain with
seven houses and about forty religious; St. Francis Borgia
joined in 1548; in 1550, Lainez accompanied the Spanish troops
in their African campaign. With rapid success came unexpected
opposition. Melchior Cano, O.P., a theologian of European
reputation, attacked the young order, which could make no
effective reply, nor could anyone get the professor to keep the
peace. But, very unpleasant as the trial was, it eventually
brought advantage to the order, as it advertised it well in
university circles, and moreover drew out defenders of
unexpected efficiency, as Juan de la Pena of the Dominicans, and
even their general, Fra Francisco Romero. The Jesuits continued
to prosper, and Ignatius subdivided (29 September, 1554) the
existing province into three, containing twelve houses and 139
religious. Yet there were internal troubles both here and in
Portugal under Simon Rodriguez, which gave the founder
anxieties. In both countries the first houses had been
established before the Constitutions and rules were committed to
writing. It was inevitable therefore that the discipline
introduced by Aroaz and Rodriguez should have differed somewhat
from that which was being introduced by Ignatius at Rome. In
Spain, the good offices of Borgia and the visits of Father Nadal
did much to effect a gradual unification of the system, though
not without difficulty. These troubles, however, affected the
higher officials of the order rather than the rank and file, who
were animated by the highest motives. The great preacher Ramirez
is said to have attracted 500 vocations to religious orders at
Salamanca in the year 1564, about 50 of them to the Society.
There were 300 Spanish Jesuits at the death of Ignatius in 1556;
and 1200 at the close of Borgia's generalate in 1572. Under the
non-Spanish generals who followed, there was an unpleasant
recrudescence of the nationalistic spirit. Considering the
quarrels which daily arose between Spain and other nations,
there can be no wonder at such ebullitions. As has been
explained under Acquaviva, Philip of Spain lent his aid to the
discontented parties, of whom the virtuous Jose de Acosta was
the spokesman, Fathers Hernendez, Dionysius Vasquez, Henriquez,
and Mariana the real leaders. Their ulterior object was to
secure a separate comissary-general for Spain. This trouble was
not quieted till the fifth congregation, 1593, after which
ensued the great debates de auxiliis with the Dominicans, the
protagonists on both sides being Spaniards. (See Congregatio de
Auxiliis; Grace, Controversies on.)
Serious as these troubles were in their own sphere, they must
not be allowed to obscure the fact that in the Society, as in
all Catholic organizations of that day, Spaniards played the
greatest roles. When we enumerate their great men and their
great works, they defy all comparison. This comparisons gains
further force when we remember that the success of the Jesuits
in Flanders and in the parts of Italy then united with the
Spanish crown was largely due to Spanish Jesuits; and the same
is true of the Jesuits in Portugal, which country with its
far-stretching colonies was also under the Spanish crown from
1581 to 1640, though neither the organization of the Portuguese
Jesuits nor the civil government of the country itself was
amalgamated with those of Spain. But it was in the more abstract
sciences that the Spanish genius shone with the greatest lustre;
Toledo (d. 1596), Molina (1600), de Valentia (1603), Vasquez
(1604), Suarez (1617), Ripalda (1648), de Lugo (1660)
(qq.v.)--these form a group of unsurpassed brilliance, and there
are quite a number of others almost equally remarkable. In moral
theology, Sanchez (1610), Azor (1603), Salas (1612), Castro
Palao (1633), Torres (Turrianus, 1635), Escobar y Mendoza
(1669). In Scripture, Maldonado (1583), Salmeron (1585),
Francisco Ribera (1591), Prado (1595), Pereira (1610), Sancio
(1628), Pineda (1637). In secular literature, mention may be
made of de Isla (q.v.). and Baltasar Gracian (1584-1658), author
of "The Art of Worldly Wisdom" (El oraculo) and "El criticon",
which seems to have suggested the idea of "Robinson Crusoe" to
Defoe.
Following the almost universal custom of the late seventeenth
century, the kings of Spain generally had Jesuit confessors; but
their attempts at reform were too often rendered ineffective by
court intrigues. This was especially the case with the Austrian,
Father, later Cardinal, Everard Nidhard (confessor of Maria Anna
of Austria) and Pere Daubenton, confessor of Philip V. After the
era of the great writers, the chief glory of the Spanish Jesuits
is to be found in their large and flourishing foreign missions
in Peru, Chile, New Grenada, the Philippines, Paraguay, Quito,
which will be noted under "missions", below. There were served
by 2171 Jesuits at the time of the Suppression. Spain itself in
1749 was divided into five provinces: Toledo with 659 members,
Castile, 718; Aragon, 604; Seville, 662; Sardinia, 300; total
2943 members (1342 priests) in 158 houses.
Portugal
At the time when Ignatius founded his order Portugal was in her
heroic age. Her rulers were full of enterprise, her universities
were full of life, her trade routes extended over the then known
world. The Jesuits were welcomed with enthusiasm, and made good
use of their opportunities. St. Francis Xavier, traversing
Portuguese colonies and settlements, proceeded to make his
splendid missionary conquests. These were continued by his
confreres in such distant lands as Abyssinia, the Congo, South
Africa, China, and Japan, by Fathers Nunhes, Silveria, Acosta,
Fernandes, and others. At Coimbra, and afterwards at Evora, the
Society made the most surprising progress under such professors
as Pedro de Fonseca (d. 1599), Luis Molina (d. 1600), Christovao
Gil, Sebastao de Abreu, etc., and from here also comes the first
comprehensive series of philosophical and theological textbooks
for students. (see Conimbricenses). With the advent of Spanish
monarchy, 1581, the Portuguese Jesuits suffered no less than the
rest of their country. Luis Carvalho joined the Spanish
opponents of Father Acquaviva, and when the apostolic collector,
Ottavio Accoramboni, launched an interdict against the
government of Lisbon, the Jesuits, especially Diego de Arida,
became involved in the undignified strife. One the other hand,
they played an honorable part in the restoration of Portugal's
liberty in 1640, and on its success, the difficulty was to
restrain King Joao IV from giving Father Manuel Fernandes a seat
in the Cortes, and employing others in diplomatic missions.
Among these Fathers were Antonio Vieira, one of Portugal's most
eloquent orators. Up to the Suppression, Portugal and her
colonists supported the following missions, of which further
notices will be found elsewhere, Goa (originally India),
Malabar, Japan, China, Brazil, Maranhao. The Portuguese
provinces in 1749 numbered 861 members (381 priests) in 49
houses. (See also Vieira, Antonio; Malagrida, Gabriel.)
France
The first Jesuits, although almost all Spaniards, were trained
and made their first vows in France, and the fortunes of the
Society in France have always been of exceptional importance for
the body at large. In early years its young men were sent to
Paris to be educated there as Ignatius had been. They were
hospitably received by Guillaume de Prat, bishop of Claremont,
whose hotel grew into the College de Clermont (1550), afterwards
known as Luis-le-Grand. Padre Viola was the first rector, but
the public classes did not begin until 1564. The Parlement of
Paris and the Sorbonne resisted vehemently the letters patent,
which Henry II and after him Francis II, and Charles IX had
granted with little difficulty. Meanwhile the same Bishop of
Claremont had founded a second college at Billom in his own
diocese, which was opened 26 July, 1556, before the first
general congregation. Colleges at Mauriac and Pamiers soon
followed, and between 1565 and 1575, other at Avignon, Chambery,
Toulouse, Rodez, Verdun, Nevers, Bordeaux, Pont-`a-Mousson,
while Fathers Coudret, Auger, Roger, and Pelletier distinguished
themselves by their apostolic labours. The utility of the order
was also shown in the Colloquies at Poissy (1561) and at
St-Germain-en-Laye by Fathers Lainez and Possevinus, and again
by Father Brouet, who, with two companions, gave his life in the
service of plague-stricken Paris in 1562, while Father Maldonado
lectured with striking effect both at Paris and Bourges.
Meantime serious trouble was growing up with the University of
Paris due to a number of petty causes, jealousy of the new
teachers, rivalry with Spain, Gallican resentment at the
enthusiastic devotion of the Jesuits to Rome, and perhaps a
spice of Calvinism. A lawsuit for the closing of Claremont
College was instituted before the Parlement, and Estienne
Pasquier, counsel for the university, delivered a celebrated
plaidoyer against the Jesuits. The parlement, though then
favorable to the order, was anxious not to irritate the
university, and came to an indecisive settlement (5 April,
1565). The Jesuits, despite the royal license, were not to be
incorporated in the university, but they might continue their
lectures. Unsatisfied with this, the university retaliated by
preventing the Jesuit scholars from obtaining degrees and later
(1573-6), a feud was maintained against Father Maldonado (q.v.)
which was eventually closed by the intervention of Gregory XIII
who had also in 1572 raised the college of Pont-a-Mousson to the
dignity of a university. But meantime, the more or less
incessant wars of religion were devastating the land, and from
time to time, several Jesuits, especially Auger and Manare, were
acting as army chaplains. They had no connection with the
Massacre of St, Bartholomew (1572); but Maldonado was afterward
deputed to receive Henry of Navarre (afterward Henry IV) into
the Church, and in many places the Fathers were able to shelter
refugees in their houses; and by remonstrance and intercession,
they saved many lives.
Immediately after his coronation (1575), Henry III chose Father
Auger for his confessor, and for exactly two hundred years the
Jesuit court confessor became an institution in France, and as
French fashions were then influential, every Catholic court in
time followed the precedent. Considering the difficulty of any
sort of control over autocratic sovereigns, the institution of a
court confessor was well adapted to the circumstances. The
occasional abuses of the office which occurred are chiefly to be
attributed to the exorbitant powers invested in the autocrat,
which no human guidance could save from periods of decline and
degradation.But this was more clearly seen later on. A crisis
for French Catholicism was near when, after the death of
Francois, Duke of Anjou, 1584, Henri de Navarre, now an
apostate, stood heir to the throne which the feeble Henry III
could not possibly retain for long. Sides were taken with
enthusiasm, and La sainte ligue was formed for the defense of
the Church (see League, The; Guise, House of; France). It was
hardly to be expected that the Jesuits to a man would have
remained cool, when the whole populace was in a ferment of
excitement. It was morally impossible to keep the Jesuit friends
of the exaltes on both sides from participating in their extreme
measures. Auger and Claude Matthieu were respectively in the
confidence of the two contending parties, the Court and the
League. Father Acquaviva succeeded in withdrawing both from
France, though with great difficulty and considerable loss of
favor on either side. One or two he could not control for some
time, and of these, the most remarkable was Henri Samerie, who
had been chaplain to Mary Stuart, and became later army chaplain
in Flanders. For a year he passed as diplomatic agent from one
prince of the League to another, evading, by their means and the
favor of Sixtus V, all Acquaviva's efforts to get him back to
regular life. But in the end, discipline prevailed, and
Acquaviva's orders to respect the consciences of both sides
enabled the Society to keep friends with all.
Henry IV made much use of the Jesuits (especially Toledo,
Possevinus, and Commolet), although they had favored the League,
to obtain canonical absolution and the conclusion of peace; and
in time (1604) took Pere Coton (q.v.) as his confessor. This,
however, is an anticipation. After the attempt on Henri's life
by Jean Chastel (27 December, 1594), the Parlement of Paris took
the opportunity of attacking the Society with fury, perhaps to
disguise the fact that they had been among the most extreme of
the Leaguers, while the Society was among the more moderate. It
was pretended that the Society was responsible for Chastel's
crime, because he had once been their student: though in truth
he was then at the university. The librarian of the Jesuit
college, Jean Guignard, was hanged, 7 January, 1595, because an
old book against the king was found in the cupboard of his room.
Antoine Arnauld, the elder, brought into his plaidoyer before
the Parlement every possible calumny against the Society and the
Jesuits were ordered to leave Paris in three days and France in
a fortnight. The decree was executed in the districts subject to
the Parlement of Paris, but not elsewhere. The king, not yet
being canonically absolved, did not then interfere. But the
pope, and many others, pleaded earnestly for the revocation of
the decree against the order. The matter was warmly debated and
eventually Henry himself gave the permission for its
readmission, on 1 September, 1603. He now made great use of the
Society, founded for it the great College of La Feche,
encouraged its missions at home, in Normandy and Bearn, and the
commencement of the foreign missions in Canada and the Levant.
The Society immediately began to increase rapidly, and counted
thirty-nine colleges, besides other houses, and 1135 religious
before the king fell under Ravaillac's dagger (1610). This was
made the occasion for new assaults by the Parlement, who availed
themselves of Marianna's book, "De rege", to attack the Society
as defenders of regicide. Suarez's "Defensio fidei" was burnt in
1614. The young King, Louis XIII, was too weak to curb the
parlementaires, but both he and the people of France favored the
Society so effectively that at the time of his death in 1643
their numbers had trebled. They now had five provinces, and that
of Paris alone counted over 13,000 scholars in its colleges. The
confessors during this reign were changed not unfrequently by
the manoeuvers of Richilieu, and included Peres Arnoux de
Seguiron, Suffren, Caussin (q.v.), Sirmond, Dinet. Richilieu's
policy of supporting the German Protestants against Catholic
Austria (which Caussin resisted) proved the occasion for angry
polemics. The German Jesuit Jacob Keller was believed (though
proof of authorship is altogether wanting) to have written two
strong pamphlets, "Mysteria politica", and "Admonitio ad
Ludovicum XIII", against France. The books were burned by the
hangman, as in 1626 was a work of Father Santarelli, which
touched awkwardly on the pope's power to pronounce against
princes.
The politico-religious history of the Society under Louis XIV
centres round Jansenism (see Jansenius and Jansenism) and the
lives of the king's confessors, especially Peres Annat
(1845-60), Ferrier (1660-74), La Chaise (q.v.) (1674-1709), and
Michel Le Tellier (q.v.) (1709-15). On 24 May, 1656, Blaise
Pascal (q.v.) published the first of his "Provinciales". The
five propositions of Jansenism having been condemned by papal
authority, Pascal could no longer defend them openly, and found
the most effective method of retaliation was satire, raillery,
and countercharge against the Society. He concluded with the
usual evasion that Jansenius did not write in the sense
attributed to him by the pope. The "Provinciales" were the first
noteworthy example in the French language of satire written in
studiously polite and moderate terms; and their great literary
merit appealed powerfully to the French love of cleverness. Too
light to be effectively answered by refutation, they were at the
same time sufficiently envenomed to do great and lasting harm;
although they have frequently been proved to misrepresent the
teachings of the Jesuits by omissions, alterations,
interpolations, and false contexts, notably by Dr, Karl Weiss,
of Gratz, "P. Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza als Moraltheologe in
Pascals Beleuchtung und im Lichte der Wahrheit".
The cause of the Jesuits was also compromised by the various
quarrels of Louis XIV with Innocent XI, especially concerning
the regale, and the Gallican articles of 1682. (See Louis XIV
and Innocent XI. The different standpoint of these articles may
help to illustrate the differences of view prevalent within the
order on this subject.) At first there was a tendency on both
sides to spare the French Jesuits. They were not at that time
asked to subscribe to the Gallican articles, while Innocent
overlooked their adherence to the king, in hopes that their
moderation might bring about peace. But it was hardly possible
that they should escape all troubles under a domination so
pressing. Louis conceived the idea of uniting all the French
Jesuits under a vicar, independent of the general in Rome.
Before making this known, he recalled all his Jesuit subjects,
and all, even the assistant, Pere Fontaine, returned to France.
Then he proposed the separation, which Thyrsus Gonzalez formally
refused. The provincials of the five French Jesuit provinces
implored the king to desist, which he eventually did. It has
been alleged that papal decree forbidding the reception of
novices between 1684-6 was issued in punishment of the French
Jesuits giving support to Louis (Cretineau-Joly). The matter is
alluded to in the Brief of Suppression; but it is still obscure
and would seem rather to be connected with the Chinese rites
than with the difficulties in France. Except for the interdict
on their schools in Paris, 1716-29, by Cardinal de Noailles, the
fortunes of the order were very calm and prosperous during the
ensuing generation. In 1749, the French Jesuits were divided
into five provinces with members as follows: France, 891;
Acquitane, 437; Lyons 772; Toulouse 655; Champagne, 594; total
3350 (1763 priests) in 158 houses.
Germany
The first Jesuit to labour here was Bl. Peter Faber (q.v.), who
won to their ranks Bl. Peter Canisius (q.v.), to whose lifelong
diligence and eminent holiness the rise and prosperity of the
German provinces are especially due. In 1556, there were two
provinces, South Germany (Germania Superior, up to and including
Mainz) and North Germany (Germania Inferior, including
Flanders). The first residence of the Society was at Cologne
(1544), the first college at Vienna (1552). The Jesuit colleges
were soon so popular that they were demanded on every side,
faster than they could be supplied, and the greater groups of
these became fresh provinces. Austria branched off in 1563,
Bohemia in 1623, Flanders had become two separate provinces by
1612, and Rhineland also two provinces by 1626. At that time the
five German-speaking provinces numbered over 100 colleges and
academies. But meanwhile all Germany was in turmoil with the
Thirty Years War, which had gone so far, generally, in favor of
the Catholic powers. In 1629 came the Restitutionsedikt (see
Counter-Reformation) by which the emperor redistributed with
papal sanction the old church property which had been recovered
from the usurpation of the Protestants. The Society received
large grants, but was not much benefited thereby. Some bitter
controversies ensued with the ancient holders of the properties,
who were often Benedictines; and many of the acquisitions were
lost again during the next period of the war.
The sufferings of the order during the second period were
grievous. Even before the war they had been systematically
persecuted and driven into exile by the Protestant princes,
whenever these had the opportunity. In 1618 they were banished
from Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia; and after the advent of
Gustavus Adolphus the violence to which they were liable
increased. The fanatical proposal of banishing them forever from
Germany was made by him in 1631, and again at Frankfurt in 1633;
and this counsel of hatred acquired a hold which it still
exercises over the German Protestant mind. The initial success
of the Catholics of course excited further antipathies,
especially as the great generals Tilly, Wallenstein, and
Piccolomini had been Jesuit pupils. During the siege of Prague,
1648, Father Plachy successfully trained a corps of students for
the defense of the town, and was awarded the mural crown for his
services. The province of Upper Rhine alone lost seventy-seven
Fathers in field hospitals or during the fighting. After the
peace of Westphalia, 1648, the tide of the Counter-Reformation
had more or less spent itself. The foundation period had passed
and there are few external events to chronicle. The last notable
conversion was that of Prince Frederick Augustus of Saxony
(1697), afterwards King of Poland. Fathers Vota and Salerno
(afterwards a cardinal) were intimately connected with his
conversion. Within the walls of their colleges and in the
churches throughout the country the work of teaching, writing
and preaching continued unabated, while the storms of
controversy rose and fell, and the distant missions, especially
China and the Spanish missions of South America, claimed scores
of the noblest and most high-spirited. To this period belong
Philip Jenigan (d. 1704) and Franz Hunolt (d. 1740), perhaps the
greatest German Jesuit preachers; Tschupick, Joseph Sneller, and
Ignatius Wurz acquired an almost equally great reputation in
Austria. In 1749, the German provinces counted as follows:
Germania Superior, 1060; Lower Rhine, 772; Upper Rhine, 497;
Austria, 1772; Bohemia 1239; total 5340 members (2558 priests)
in 307 houses. (See also the index volume under the title
"Society of Jesus", and such names as Becan, Byssen, Brouwer,
Dreschel, Lohner, etc.)
Hungary was included in the province of Austria. The chief
patron of the order was Cardinal Pazmany (q.v.). The conversion
of Sweden was several times attempted by German Jesuits, but
they were not allowed to stay in the country. King John III,
however, who had married a Polish princess, was actually
converted (1578) through several missions by Fathers Warsiewicz
and Possevinus, the latter accompanied by the English Father
William Good; but the king had not the courage to persevere.
Queen Christina (q.v.) in 1654 was brought into the Church,
largely through the ministrations of Fathers Macedo and Casati,
having given up her throne for this purpose. The Austrian
Fathers maintained a small residence at Moscow from 1684 to
1718, which had been opened by Father Vota. (See Possevinus).
Poland
Bl. Peter Canisius, who visited Poland in the train of the
legate Mantuato in 1558, succeeded in animating King Sigismund
to energetic defense of Catholicism, and Bishop Hosius of
Ermland founded the College of Braunsburg in 1584, which with
that of Vilna (1569) became centres of Catholic activity in
northeastern Europe. King Stephen Bathory, an earnest patron of
the order, founded a Ruthenian College at Vilna in 1575. From
1588, Father Peter Skarga (d. 1612) made a great impression by
his preaching. There were violent attacks against the Society in
the revolution of 1607, but after the victory of Sigismund III
the Jesuits more than recovered the ground lost; and in 1608 the
province could be subdivided into Lithuania and Poland. The
animus against the Jesuits however, vented itself in Cracow in
1612, through the scurrilous satire entitled "Monita secreta",
(q.v.). King Casimir, who had once been a Jesuit, favored the
Society not a little; so too did Sobieski, and his campaign to
relieve Vienna from the Turks (1683) was due in part to the
exhortations of Father Vota, his confessor. Among the great
Polish missionaries are numbered Benedict Herbst (d. 1593) and
Bl. Andrew Bobola. In 1756 the Polish provinces were readjusted
into four: Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Lithuania, Massovia,
counting in all 2359 religious. The Polish Jesuits, besides
their own missions, had others in Stockholm, Russia, the Crimea,
Constantinople, and Persia. (See Cracow, University of.)
Belgium
The first settlement was at Louvaun in 1542, whither the
students in Paris retired on the declaration of war between
France and Spain. In 1556 Ribadeneira obtained legal
authorization for the Society from Philip II, and in 1564
Flanders became a separate province. Its beginning, however,
were by no means uniformly prosperous. The Duke of Alva was cold
and suspicious, while the wars of the revolting provinces told
heavily against it. At the pacification of Ghent (1576), the
Jesuits were offered an oath against the rulers of the
Netherlands, which they firmly refused, and were driven from
their houses. But this at last won for them Philip's favor, and
under Alexander Farnese fortune turned completely in their
favour. Father Oliver Manare became a leader fitted for the
occasion, whom Acquaviva himself greeted as "Pater Provinciae".
In a few years, a number of well-established colleges had been
founded, and in 1612 the Province had to be subdivided. The
Flandro-Belgica counted sixteen colleges and the Gallo-Belgica
eighteen. All but two were day schools with no preparatory
colleges for small boys. They were worked with comparatively
small staffs of five or six, sometimes only three professors,
though their scholars might count as many hundreds. Teaching was
gratuitous, but a sufficient foundation for the support of the
teachers was a necessary preliminary. Though preparatory and
elementary education was not yet in fashion, the care taken in
teaching catechism was most elaborate. The classes were regular,
and at intervals enlivened with music, ceremonies, mystery
plays, and processions. These were often attended by the whole
magistracy in robes of state, while the bishop himself would
attend at the distribution of honours. A special congregation
was formed at Antwerp in 1648, to organize ladies and gentlemen,
nobles and bourgeois, into Sunday school teachers, and in that
year their classes counted in all 3000 children. Similar
organizations existed all over the country. The first communion
classes formed an extension of the catechisms. In Bruges,
Brussels, and Antwerp, between 600 and 1600 attended the
communion classes.
Jesuit congregations of the Blessed Virgin were first instituted
at Rome by a Belgian Jesuit, John Leunis, in 1563. His native
country soon took them up with enthusiasm. Each college had
normally four:
+ for scholars (more often two, one for older, one for younger);
+ for young men on leaving;
+ for grown-up men (more often several) -- for workingmen, for
tradesmen, professional classes, nobles, priests, doctors,
etc., etc.;
+ for small boys.
In days before hospitals, workhouses, and elementary education
were regularly organized, and supported by the State; before
burial-clubs, trade-unions, and the like provided special help
for the working man, these sodalities discharged the functions
of such institutions, in homely fashion perhaps, but
gratuitously, bringing together all ranks for the relief of
indigence. Some of these congregations were exceedingly popular,
and their registers still show the names of the first artists
and savants of the time (Teniers, Van Dyck, Rubens, Lipsius,
etc.). Archdukes and kings and even four emperors are found
among the sodalists of Louvain. Probably the first permanent
corps of Army chaplains was that established by Farnese in 1587.
It consisted of ten to twenty-five chaplains, and was styled the
"Missio castrensis," and lasted as an institution until 1660.
The "Missio navalis" was a kindred institution for the navy. The
Flandro-Belgian province numbered 542 in 1749 (232 priests) in
30 houses: Gallo-Belgian, 471 (266 priests) in 25 houses.
England
Founded in Rome after the English schism had commenced, the
Society had great difficulty in finding an entrance into
England, though Ignatius and Ribadeneira visited the country in
1531 and 1558, and prayers for its conversion have been recited
throughout the order to the present day (now under the common
designation of "Northern Nations"). Other early Jesuits exerted
themselves on behalf of the English seminary at Douai and of the
refugees at Louvain. The effect of Elizabeth's expulsion of
Catholics from Oxford, 1562-75, was that many took refuge
abroad. Some scores of young men entered the Society, several of
these volunteered for foreign missions, and thus it came about
that the forerunner of those legions of Englishmen who go into
India to carve out careers was the English Jesuit missionary,
Thomas Stevens. John Yate (alias Vincent, b. 1550; died after
1603) and John Meade (see Almeida) were pioneers of the mission
to Brazil. The most noteworthy of the first recruits were Thomas
Darbishire and William Good, followed in time by Blessed Edmund
Campion (q.v.) and Robert Persons. The latter was the first to
conceive and elaborate the idea of the English mission, which,
at Dr. Allen's request, was undertaken in December, 1578.
Before this the Society had undertaken care of the English
College, Rome (see English College), by the pope's command, 19
March, 1578. But difficulties ensued owing to the miseries
inherent in the estate of the religious refugees. Many came all
the way to Rome expecting pensions, or scholarships from the
rector, who at first became, in spite of himself, the dispenser
of Pope Gregory's alms. But the alms soon failed, and several
scholars had to be dismissed as unworthy. Hence disappointments
and storms of grumbling, the records of which read sadly by the
side of the consoling accounts of the martyrdoms of men like
Campion, Cottam, Southwell, Walpole, Page, and others, and the
labours of a Hetward, Weston, or Gerard. Persons and Crichton
too, falling in with the idea, so common abroad, that a
counter-revolution in favor of Mary Stuart would not be
difficult, made two or three political missions to Rome and
Madrid (1582-84) before realizing that their schemes were not
feasible (see Persons). After the Armada (q.v.), Persons induced
Philip to establish more seminaries, and hence the foundations
at Valladolid, St-Omer, and Seville (1589, 1592, 1593), all put
in charge of the English Jesuits. On the other hand they
suffered a setback in the so-called Appellant Controversy
(1598-1602) which French diplomacy in Rome eventually made into
an opportunity for operating against Spain. (See Blackwell;
Garnet.) The assistance of France, and the influence of the
French Counter-Reformation were now on the whole highly
beneficial. But many who took refuge at Paris became accustomed
to a Gallican atmosphere, and hence perhaps some of the regalist
views about the Oath of Allegiance, and some of the excitement
in the debate over the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Calcedon,
of which more below. The feelings of tension continued until the
missions of Pizzani, Conn, and Rosetti, 1635-41. Though the
first of these was somewhat hostile, he was recalled in 1637,
and his successors brought about a peace, too soon to be
interrupted by the Civil War, 1641-60.
Before 1606, the English Jesuits had founded houses for others,
but neither they nor any other English order had erected houses
for themselves. But during the so-called "Foundation Movement",
due to many causes but especially perhaps to the stimulation of
the Counter-Reformation (q.v.) in France, a full equipment of
institutions was established in Flanders. The novitiate began at
Louvain in 1606, was moved to Liege in 1614, and in 1622 to
Watten. The house at Liege was continued as the scholasticate,
and the house of third probation was at Ghent 1620. The
"mission" was made in 1619 a vice-province, and on 21 January,
1623, a province, with Fr. Richard Blout as first provincial;
and in 1634 it was able to undertake the foreign mission of
Maryland (see below) in the old Society. The English Jesuits at
this period also reached their greatest numbers. In 1621, they
were 211, in 1636, 374. In the latter year, their total revenue
amount to 45,086 scudi (about 5760 English pounds in 1913).
After the civil War both members and revenue fell off very
considerably. In 1649 there were only 264 members, and 23,055
scudi revenue (about 5760 pounds); in 1645, the revenue was only
17,405 scudi (about 4350 pounds).
Since Elizabeth's time the martyrs had been few--one only, the
Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith (q.v.) in the reign of Charles I. On 26
October, 1623, had occurred "The Doleful Even-song". A
congregation had gathered for vespers in the garret of the
French embassy in Blackfriars, when the floor gave way. Fathers
Drury and Rediate with 61 (perhaps 100) of the congregation were
killed. On 14 March, 1628, seven Jesuits were seized at St.
John's Clerkenwell, with a large number of papers. These
troubles, however, were light, compared with the sufferings
during the Commonwealth, when the list of martyrs and confessors
went up to ten. As the Jesuits depended so much on the country
families, they were sure to suffer severely by the war, and the
college at St-Omar was nearly beggared. The old trouble about
the Oath of Allegiance was revived by the Oath of Abjuration,
and the "three questions" proposed by Fairfax, 1 August 1647
(see White, Thomas). The representatives of the secular and
regular clergy, amongst them Father Henry More, were called upon
at short notice to subscribe to them. They did so, More thinking
he might, "considering the reasons of the preamble", which
qualified the words of the oath considerably. But the
provincial, Fr. Silesdon, recall him from England, and he was
kept out of office for a year; a punishment which, even if
drastic for his offence, cannot be regretted, as it
providentially led to his writing the history of the English
Jesuits down to the year 1635 ("Hist, missionis anglicanae Soc.
Jesu, ab anno salutis MDLXXX", St-Omer, 1660).
With the Restoration, 1660, came a period of greater calm,
followed by the worst tempest of all, Oates's plot (q.v.), when
the Jesuits lost eight on the scaffold and thirteen in prison in
five years, 1678-83. Then the period of greatest prosperity
under King James II (1685-8). He gave then a college, and a
public chapel in Somerset House, made Father Petri his almoner,
and on 11 November, 1687, a member of his Privy Council. He also
chose Father Warner as his confessor, and encouraged the
preaching and controversies which were carried on with no little
fruit. But this spell of prosperity lasted only a few months;
with the Revolution of 1688, the Fathers regained their
patrimony of persecution. The last Jesuits to die in prison were
Fathers Poulton and Aylworth (1690-1692). William III's
repressive legislation did not have the intended effect of
exterminating the Catholics, but it did reduce them to a
proscribed and ostracized body. Thenceforward the annals of the
English Jesuits show little that is new or striking, though
their number and works of charity were well-maintained. Most of
the Fathers in England were chaplains to gentlemen's families,
of which posts they held nearly a hundred during the eighteenth
century.
The church law under which the English Jesuits worked was to
some extent special. At first indeed all was undefined, seculars
and regulars living in true happy-family style. As, however,
organization developed, friction between parts could not always
be avoided, and legislation became necessary. By the institution
of the archpriest (7 March, 1598), and by the subsequent
modifications of the institution (6 April, 1599; 17 August,
16701; and 5 October, 1602), various occasions for friction were
removed, and principles for stable government were introduced.
As soon as Queen Henrietta Maria seemed able to protect a bishop
in England, bishops of Chalcedon in partibus infidelium were
sent, in 1623 and 1625. The second of these, Dr. Richard Smith,
endeavored, without having the necessary faculty from Rome, to
introduce the episcopal approbation of confessors. This lead to
the brief "Britannica", 9 May, 1631 which left the faculties of
regular missionaries in their previous immediate dependence on
the Holy See. But after the institution of vicars Apostolic in
1685, by a decree of 9 October, 1695, regulars were obliged to
obtain approbation from the bishop. There were of course many
other matters that needed settlement, but the difficulties of
the position in England and the distance from Rome made
legislation slow and difficult. In 1745 and 1748 decrees were
obtained, against which appeals were lodged; and it was not till
31 May, 1753, that the "Regulae missionis" were laid down by
Benedict XIV in the Constitution "Apostolicum ministerium",
which regulated ecclesiastical administration until the issuance
of the Constitution "Romanos Pontifices" in 1881. In the year of
the suppression, 1773, the English Jesuits numbered 274. (See
Coffin, Edward; Creswell; English Confessors and Martyrs; More,
Henry; Penal Laws; Persons, Robert; Petre, Sir Edward; Plowden;
Sabran, Louis de; Southwell; Spencer, John; Stephens, Thomas;
Redford.)
Ireland
One of the first commissions which the popes entrusted to the
Society was that of acting as envoys to Ireland. Father Salmeron
and Brouet managed to reach Ulster during the Lent of 1542; but
the immense difficulties of the situation after Henry VIII's
successes of 1541 made it impossible for them to live there in
safety, much less to discharge the functions or to commence the
reforms which the pope had entrusted to them. Under Queen Mary,
the Jesuits would have returned, had there been men ready. There
were indeed already a few Irish novices, and of these David
Woulfe returned to Ireland on 20 January, 1561, with ample
Apostolic faculties. He procured candidates for the sees emptied
by Elizabeth, kept open a grammar school for some years, and
sent several novices to the order; but he was finally imprisoned
and had to withdraw to the continent. A little later the "Irish
mission" was regularly organized under Irish superiors,
beginning with Fr. Richard Fleming (d. 1590), professor at
Clermont College, and then Chancellor of the University of
Pont-`a-Mousson.In 1609, the mission numbered seventy-two, forty
of whom were priests, and eighteen were at work in Ireland. By
1617 this latter number had increased to thirty eight; the rest
were for the most part in training among their French and
Spanish confreres. The foundation of the colleges abroad, at
Salamanca, Santiago, Seville, and Lisbon, for the education of
the clergy was chiefly due to Father Thomas White (d. 1622).
They were consolidated and long managed by Fr, James Arthur of
Kilkenny, afterwards missionary in Ulster and chaplain to Hugh
O'Neill. The Irish College at Poitiers was also under Irish
Jesuit direction, as was that of Rome for some time (see Irish
College, in Rome).
The greatest extension in Ireland was naturally during the
dominance of the Confederation (1542-54) with which Father
Matthew O'Hartigan was in great favour. Jesuit colleges,
schools, and residences then amounted to thirteen, with a
novitiate at Kilkenny. During the Protestant domination, the
number of Jesuits fell again to eighteen, but in 1685, under
James II there were twenty-eight with seven residences. After
the Revolution, their number fell again to six, and then rose to
seventeen in 1717, and to twenty-eight in 1755. The Fathers
sprang mostly from the old Anglo-Norman families, but almost all
the missionaries spoke Irish, and missionary labour was the
chief occupation of the Irish Jesuits. Fr. Robert Rochford set
up a school at Youdal as early as 1575; university education was
given in Dublin in the reign of Charles I, until the buildings
were seized and handed over to Trinity College; and Father John
Austin kept a flourishing school in Dublin for twenty-two years
before the Suppression.
Some account of the work of the Jesuits in Ireland will be found
in the articles on Father Christopher Holywood and Henry
Fitzsimon; but it was abroad, from the nature of the case, that
Irish genius of that day found it widest recognition. Stephen
White, Luke Wadding, cousin of his famous Franciscan namesake,
at Madrid; Andrew and Peter Wadding at Dilligen and Gratz
respectively; J, B, Duiggin and John Lombard at Ypres and
Antwerp; Thomas Comerford at Compostella; Paul Sherlock at
Salamanca; Richard Lynch (1611-76) at Valladolid and Salamanca;
James Kelly at Poitiers and Paris; Peter Plunket at Leghorn.
Among the distinguished writers were William Bathe, whose "Janua
linguarum" (Salamanca, 1611) was the basis of the work of
Commenius. Bertrand Routh (b. at Kilkenny, 1695) was a writer in
the "Memoires de Trevoux" (1734-43), and assisted Montesquieu on
his death-bed. In the field of foreign mission, O'Fihily was one
of the first apostles of Paraguay, and Thomas Lynch was
provincial of Brazil at the time of the Suppression. At this
time also, Roger Magloire was working in Martinique, and Philip
O'Reilly in Guiana. But it was the mission-field in Ireland
itself of which the Irish Jesuits thought most, to which all
else, in one way or other lead up. Their labours were
principally spent in the walled cities of the old English Pale.
Here they kept the faith vigorous, in spite of persecutions,
which, if sometimes intermitted, were nevertheless long and
severe. The first Irish Jesuit martyr was Edmund O'Donnell who
suffered at Cork in 1575. Others on that list of honour are:
Dominic Collins, a lay brother, Youghal, 1602; William Boynton,
Cahel, 1647; Fathers Netterville and Bathe, at the fall of
Drogheda, 1649. Father David Gallway worked among the scattered
and persecuted Gaels of the Scottish Isles and Highlands, until
his death in 1643. (See also Fitsimon; Malone; O'Donnell;
Talbot, Peter; Irish Confessors and Martyrs.)
Scotland
Father Nicholas de Gouda was sent to visit Mary Queen of Scots
in 1562 to invite her to send bishops to the Council of Trent.
The power of the Protestants made it impossible to achieve this
object, but de Gouda conferred with the Queen and brought back
with him six young Scots, who were to prove the founders of the
mission. Of these Edmund Hay soon rose to prominence and was
rector of Clermont College, Paris. In 1584, Crichton returned
with Father James Gordon, uncle of the Earl of Huntly, to
Scotland; the former was captured, but the latter was
extraordinarily successful, and the Scottish mission proper may
be said to have begun with him, and Father Edmund Hay and John
Drury, who came in 1585. The Earl of Huntly became the Catholic
leader, and the fortunes of his party passed through many a
strange turn. But the Catholic victory of Glenlivet, in 1594,
aroused the temper of the Kirk to such a pitch that James,
though averse to severity, was forced to advance against the
Catholic lords and eventually Huntly was constrained to leave
the country, and then, returning he submitted to the Kirk in
1597. This put a term to the spread of Catholicism; Father James
Gordon had to leave in 1595, but Father Abercrombie succeeded in
reconciling Anne of Denmark, who, however, did not prove a very
courageous convert. Meantime the Jesuits had been given the
management of the Scots College founded by Mary Stuart in Paris,
which was successively removed to Pont-a-Mousson and to Douai.
In 1600 another college was founded at Rome and put under them,
and there was also a small one at Madrid.
After reaching the English throne, James was bent on introducing
episcopacy into Scotland, and to reconcile the Presbyterians to
this he allowed them to persecute the Catholics to their hearts'
content. By their barbarous "excommunication", the suffering
they inflicted was incredible. The soul of the resistance to
this cruelty was Father James Anderson, who, however, becoming
the object of special searches, had to be withdrawn in 1611. In
1614, Fathers John Ogilvie (q.v.) and James Moffat were sent in,
the former suffering martyrdom at Glasgow, 10 March 1615. In
1620, Father Patrick Anderson (q.v.) was tried, but eventually
banished. After this, a short period of peace, 1625-27, ensued,
followed by another persecution, 1629-30, and another period of
peace before the rising of the Covenanters, and the Civil Wars,
1638-45. There were about six Fathers in the mission at the
time, some chaplains with the Catholic gentry, some living the
then wild life of the Highlanders, especially during Montrose's
campaigns. But after Philiphaugh (1645), the fortunes of the
royalists and the Catholics underwent a sad change. Among those
who fell into the hands of the enemy was Father Andrew Leslie,
who has left a lively account of his prolonged sufferings in
various prisons. After the Restoration (1660) there was a new
period of peace in which the Jesuit missionaries reaped a
considerable harvest, but during the disturbances caused by the
Covenanters (q.v.) the persecution of Catholics was renewed.
James II favored them as far as he could, appointing Fathers
James Forbes and Thomas Patterson chaplains at Holyrood, where a
school was also opened. After the Revolution, the Fathers were
scattered, but returned, though with diminishing numbers.
MISSIONS
No sphere of religious activity is held in greater esteem among
the Jesuits than that of the foreign missions; and from the
beginning, men of the highest gifts, like St. Francis Xavier,
have been devoted to this work. Hence perhaps it is that a
better idea may be formed of the Jesuits missions by reading the
lives of its great missionaries, which will be found under their
respective names (see the Index), than from the following
notice, in which attention has to be confined to general topics.
India
When the Society began, the great colonizing powers were Spain
and Portugal. The career of St. Francis Xavier, so far as its
geographical direction and limits were concerned, was largely
determined by the Portuguese settlements in the East, and by the
trade routes followed by the Portuguese merchants. Arriving at
Goa in 1542, he evangelized first the western coast and Ceylon;
in 1545 he was in Malacca; in 1549 in Japan. At the same time he
pushed forward his few assistants and catechists into other
centers, and in 1552 set out for China, but died at the year's
end on an island off the coast. Xavier's work was carried on,
with Gao as headquarters, and Father Barzaeus as successor.
Father Antonio Criminali, the first martyr of the Society had
suffered in 1549 and Father Mendez followed in 1552. In 1559,
Blessed Rudolph Acquiviva visited the court of Akbar the Great,
but without permanent effect. The great impulse of conversions
came after Ven. Robert de Nobili (q.v.) declared himself a
Brahmin Sannjasi and lived the life of the Brahmins (1606). At
Tanjore and elsewhere he now made immense numbers of converts,
who were allowed to keep the distinctions of their caste, with
many religious customs; which, however, were eventually (after
much controversy) condemned by Benedict XIV in 1744. This
condemnation produced a depressing effect on the mission, though
at the very time Fathers Lopez and Acosta with singular heroism
devoted themselves for life to the service of the Pariahs. The
Suppression of the Society, which followed soon after, completed
the desolation of a once prolific missionary field. (See Malabar
Rites.) From Gao too were organized missions to the east coast
of Africa. The Abyssinian mission, under Father Nunhes, Oviedo,
and Paes lasted, with various fortunes, over a century 1555-1690
(See Abyssinia, I, 76). The mission on the Zambesi under Father
Silviera, Acosta, and Fernandez was but short lived; so too was
the work of Father Govea in Angola. In the seventeenth century,
the missionaries penetrated into Tibet, Fathers Desideri and
Freyre reaching Lhasa. Others pushed out in the Persian mission,
from Ormus as far as Ispahan. About 1700 the Persian missions
counted 400,000 Catholics. The southern and eastern coasts of
India, with Ceylon, were comprised after 1610 in the separate
province of Malabar, with an independent French mission at
Pondicherry. Malabar numbered forty-seven missionaries
(Portuguese) before the Suppression, while the French missions
counted 22. (See Hanxleden).
Japan
The Japanese mission (see Japan, VIII, 306) gradually developed
into a province, but the seminary and seat of government
remained at Macao. By 1582, the number of Christians was
estimated at 200,000, with 250 churches, and 59 missionaries, of
whom 23 were priests, and 26 Japanese had been admitted to the
Society. But 1587 saw the beginnings of persecution, and about
the same period began the rivalries of nations and of competing
orders. The Portuguese crown had been assumed by Spain, and
Spanish merchants introduced Spanish Dominicans and Franciscans.
Gregory XIII at first forbade this (28 January, 1585) but
Clement VIII and Paul V (12 December, 1600; 11 June 1608)
relaxed and repealed the prohibition, and the persecution of
Taico-sama quenched in blood whatever discontent might have
arisen in consequence. The first great slaughter of 26
missionaries at Nagasaki took place on 5 Feb., 1597. Then came
fifteen years of comparative peace, and gradually the number of
Christians rose to about 1,800,000 and the Jesuit missionaries
to 140 (63 priests). In 1612, the persecution broke out again,
increasing in severity until 1622, when over 120 martyrs
suffered. The "great martyrdom" took place on 20 September, when
Blessed Charles Spinola (q.v.) suffered with representatives of
the Dominicans and the Franciscans. For the twenty ensuing
years, the massacre continued without mercy, all Jesuits who
landed being at once executed. In 1644 Father Gaspar de Amaral
was drowned in attempting to land, and his death brought to a
close the century of missionary effort which the Jesuits had
made to bring the faith to Japan. The name of the Japanese
province was retained, and it counted 57 subjects in 1660; but
the mission was really confined to Tonkin and Cochin-China,
whence stations were established in Annam, Siam, etc. (see
Indo-China, VII, 774-5; Martyrs, Japanese).
China
A detailed account of this mission from 1552-1773 will be found
under China (III, 672-4) and Martyrs in China, and in lives of
the missionaries Bouvet, Brancati, Carneiro, Cibot, Fridelli,
Gaubil, Gerbillon, Herdtrich, Hinderer, Mailla, Martini, Matteo
Ricci, Schall von Bell, and Verbiest (qq.v.). From 1581, when
the mission was organized, it consisted of Portuguese Fathers.
They established four colleges, one seminary and some forty
stations under a vice-provincial who resided frequently at
Pekin; at the Suppression there were 54 Fathers. From 1687 there
was a special mission of the French Jesuits to Pekin, under
their own superior; at the Suppression they numbered 23.
Central and South America
The missions of Central and South America were divided between
Portugal and Spain (see America, I, 414). In 1549, Father
Numbrega and five companions, Portuguese, went to Brazil.
Progress was slow at first, but when the languages had been
learnt, and the confidence of the natives acquired, progress
became rapid. Blessed Ignacio de Azevedo and his thirty-one
companions were martyred on their way thither in 1570. The
missions, however, prospered steadily under such leaders as Jose
Anchieta and John Almeida (qq.v.) (Meade). In 1630, there were
70,000 converts. Before the Suppression, the whole country had
been divided into missions, served by 445 Jesuits in Brazil, and
146 in the vice-province of Maranhao.
Paraguay
Of the Spanish missions, the most noteworthy is Paraguay (see
Guarani Indians; Abipones; Argentine Republic; Reductions of
Paraguay). The province contained 584 members (of whom 385 were
priests) before the Suppression, with 113,716 Indians under
their charge.
Mexico
Even larger than Paraguay was the missionary province of Mexico,
which included California, with 572 Jesuits and 122,000 Indians.
(See also California Missions; Mexico, pp. 258, 266, etc.;
Anazco; Clavigero; Diaz; Ducrue; etc.) The conflict as to
jurisdiction (1647) with Juan de la Palafox y Mendoza (q.v.),
Bishop of La Puebla, led to an appeal to Rome which was decided
by Innocent X in 1648, but afterward became a cause celebre. The
other Spanish missions, New Granada (Colombia), Chile, Peru,
Quito (Ecuador), were administered by 193, 242, 526, and 209
Jesuits respectively (see Alegre; Araucanians; Arawaks; Barrasa;
Moxos Indians).
United States
Father Andrew White (q.v.) and four other Jesuits from the
English missions arrived in territory now comprised in the state
of Maryland, 25 March, 1634, with the expedition of Cecil
Calvert (q.v.). For ten years they ministered to the Catholics,
of the colony, converted many of its Protestant pioneers, and
conducted missions with the Indians along Chesapeake Bay and the
Potomac River, the Patuxents, Anacostans, and Piscaways, which
last were especially friendly. In 1644 the colony was invaded by
the Puritans from the neighboring settlement of Virginia, and
Father White was sent in chains to England, tried for being a
Catholic, and on his release took refuge in Belgium. Although
the Catholic colonists soon regained control, they were
constantly menaced by their Protestant neighbours and by
malcontents in the colony itself, who finally in 1692 succeeded
in seizing the government, and in enacting a penal law against
the Catholics, particularly against their Jesuit priests, which
became more and more intolerable until the colony became the
state of Maryland in 1776. During the 140 years between their
arrival in Maryland and the Suppression of the Society, the
missionaries, averaging four in number the first forty years,
and then gradually increasing to twelve and then about twenty,
continued their work among the Indians and the Settlers despite
every vexation and disability, though prevented from increasing
in number and extending their labours during the dispute with
Cecil Calvert over retaining the tract of land, Mattapany, given
then by the Indians, relief from taxation on lands devoted to
religious or charitable purposes, and the usual ecclesiastical
immunity for themselves and their households. The controversy
ended in the cession of the Mattapany tract, the missionaries
retaining the land they had acquired by the condition of
plantation. Prior to the Suppression, they had established
missions in Maryland, at St. Thomas, White Marsh, St. Inigoes,
Leonardtown still (1912) under the care of the Jesuits, and also
at Deer Creek, Frederick, and St. Joseph's Bohemia Manor besides
the many less permanent stations among the Indians in
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Conewego, Lancaster, Gosenhoppen,
and the excursion stations as far as New York, where two of
their number, Fathers Harvey and Harrison assisted for a time by
Father Gage had, under Governor Dongan ministered as chaplains
in the forts and among the white settlers, and attempted
unsuccessfully to establish a school between 1683-89, when they
were forced to retire by an anti-Catholic administration.
The Suppression of the Society altered but little the status of
the Jesuits in Maryland. As they were the only priests in the
mission, they still remained at their posts, the nine English
members, until death, all continuing to labor under Father John
Lewis who after the Suppression had received the powers of
vicar-general from Bishop Calloner of the London District. Only
two of them survived until the restoration of the
Society--Robert Molyneux and John Bolton. Many of those who were
abroad, labouring in England or studying in Belgium, returned to
work in the mission. As a corporate body, they still retained
the properties from which they derived support for their
religious ministrations. As their numbers decreased, some of the
missions were abandoned, or served for a time by other priests,
but maintained by the revenues of the Jesuits properties even
after the Restoration of the Society. Though these properties
were regarded as reverting to it through its former members
organized as the Corporation of Roman Catholic clergymen, a
yearly allowance from the revenues made over to Archbishop
Carroll became during Bishop Marechal's administration (1817-34)
the basis of a claim for such a payment in perpetuity and the
dispute thus occasioned was not settled until 1838 under
Archbishop Eccleston.
French Missions
The French missions had as bases the French colonies in Canada,
the Antilles, Guiana, and India; while the French influence in
the Mediterranean led to missions of the Levant, in Syria among
the Maronites (q.v.), etc. (See also Guiana; Haiti; Martinique;
China, III, 673.) The Canadian mission is described under
Canada, and Missions, Catholic Indian, of Canada. (See also the
accounts of the missions given in articles on Indian tribes like
the Abenakis, Cree, Huron, Iroquois, Ottawas; and the
biographies of the missionaries Bailloquet, Brebeuf, Casot,
Chabanel, Chastellain, Chaumonot, Cholonec, Crepieul, Dablon,
Cruillettes, Garnier, Goupil, Jouges, Lafitau, Lagrene,
Jacques-P. Lallemant, Lamberville, Lauzon, Le Moyne, Rale, etc.)
In 1611, Fathers Biard and Masse arrived as missionaries at Port
Royal, Acadia. Taken prisoners by the English from Virginia,
they were sent back to France in 1614. In 1625, Fathers Masse,
Brebeuf, and Charles Lalemant came to work in and about Quebec,
until 1629, when they were forced to return to France after the
English captured Quebec. Back again in 1632, they began the most
heroic missionary period in the annals of America. They opened a
college in Quebec in 1635 with a staff of most accomplished
professors from France. For forty years, men quite as
accomplished, labouring under incredible hardships, opened
missions among the Indians on the coast, along the St. Lawrence
and the Saguenay, and Hudson Bay; among the Iroquois, Neutral
Nation, Petuns, Hurons, Ottawas, and later among the Miamis,
Illinois, and the tribes east of the Mississippi as far south as
the Gulf of Mexico. When Canada became a British possession in
1763, these missions could no longer be sustained, though many
of them, especially those that formed part of parochial
settlements had gradually been taken over by secular priests.
The college at Quebec was closed in 1768. At the time of the
Suppression. there were but twenty-one Jesuits in Canada, the
last of whom, Father John J. Casot, died in 1800. The mission
has become famous for its martyrs, eight of whom, Brebeuf,
Gabriel Lalemant, Daniel, Garnier, Chabanel, Jogues and his lay
companions Goupil and Lalande were declared venerable on 27
February, 1912. It has also become noted for its literary
remains, especially for the works of the missionaries in the
Indian tongues, for their explorations, especially that of
Marquette, and for its "Relations."
Jesuit Relations
The collections known as "Jesuit Relations" consist of letters
written from members of the Society in the mission field to
their superiors and brethren in Europe, and contain accounts of
the development of the missions, and the obstacles which they
encountered in their work. In March, 1549, when St. Francis
Xavier confided the mission of Ormus to Father Gaspar Barzaeus,
he included among his instructions the commission to write from
time to time to the college at Goa, giving an account of what
was being done in Ormus. His letter to Joam Beira (Malacca, 20
June, 1540), recommends similar accounts being sent to St.
Ignatius at Rome and the Father Simon Rodriguez at Lisbon, and
is very explicit concerning both the content and the tone of
these accounts. The instructions were the guide for the future
"Relations sent from all the foreign missions of the order. The
"Relations" were of three kinds: Intimate and personal accounts
sent to the father-general, to a relative, to a friend, or a
superior, which were not meant for publication at the time, if
ever. There were also annual letters intended only for members
of the order, manuscript copies of which were sent from house to
house. Extracts and analyses of these letters were compiled in a
volume entitled: "Litterae annuae Societatis Jesu ad patres et
fratres Ejusdem Societatis". The rule forbade the communication
of these letters to persons not members of the order, as is
indicated by the title. The publication of the annual letters
began in 1581, was interrupted from 1614 to 1649, and came to an
end in 1654, though the provinces and missions continued to send
such letters to the father-general. The third class of letters,
or "Relations" properly so-called, were written for the public
and intended for printing. Of this class were the famous
"Relations de la Novelle-France" begun in 1616 by Father Biard.
The series for 1626 was written by Father Charles Lalement.
Forty-one volumes constitute the series of 1632-72, thirty-nine
of which bear the title "Relations" and two (1645-55 and
1658-59) "Letteres de la Novelle-France". The cessation of these
publications was the indirect outcome of the controversies
concerning the Chinese Rites, as Clement X forbade (16 April,
1673) missionaries to publish books or writings concerning the
missions without the written consent of Propaganda.
History: A. General.--Mon. historica Soc. Jesu, ed. Rodeles
(Madrid, 1894, in progress); Orlandini (continued in turn by
Sacchini, Jouvancy, and Cordara), Hist. Soc. Jesu, 1540-1632 (8
vols. fol., Rome and Antwerp, 1615-1750), and Supplement (Rome,
1859); Bartoli, Dell' istoria della comp. de Gesu (6 vols. fol.,
Rome, 1663-73); Cretineau-Holy, Hist.de la comp. de Jesus (3rd
ed., 3 vols., Paris 1859); B. N. The Jesuits: their Foundation
and History (London, 1879); [Wernz], Abriss der Gesch. der
Gesellschaft Jesu (Munster, 1876); Carrez Atlas geographicus
Soc. Jesu (Paris, 1900); Heimbucher, Die Orden und
Kongregationen der katholkischen Kirche, III (Paderborn, 1908),
2-258, contains an excellent bibliography; [Quesnel] Hist. des
religieux de la comp. de Jesus (Utrecht, 174).
Non-Catholic:--Steitz-Zockler in Realencycl. fur prot. Theol.,
s. v. Jesuitenorden; Hassenmuller, Hist.jesuitici ordinis
(Frankfurt, 1593); Hospinianus, Hist. jesuitica (Zurich, 1619).
B. Particular Countries.--Italy--Tacchi-Venturi Storia della
comp di G. in Italia (Rome, 1910 in progress); Schinosi and
Santagata Istoria della comp. di G. appartenente al Regno di
Napoli (Naples, 1706-57); Alberti, La Sicilia (Palermo, 1702);
Aquilera Provinciae Siculae Soc Jesu res gestae (Palermo,
1737-40); Cappelletti, I gesuiti e la republica di Venizia
(Venice. 1873); Favaro, Lo studio di Padora e la comp de G.
(Venice, 1877). Spain.--Astrain, Hist. de la comp. de J. in
asistencia di Espana (Madrid, 1902, 3 vols., in progress);
Alcazar, Chronohistoria de la comp de J. en la provincia de la
Toledo (Madrid 1710); Prat, Hist du P. Ribedeneyra (Paris 1862).
Portugal--Tellez, Chronica de la comp. de J. na provincia de
Portugal (Coimbra, 1645-7); Franco, Synop. annal. Soc. Jesu in
Lusitania ab anno 1 40 ad 172 (Augsburg, 1726); Teixeira, Docum.
para a hist. dos Jesuitas em Portugal (Coimbra, 1899).
France.--Fouqueray, Hist de la comp de J. en France (Paris.
1910); Carayon, Docum. ined. concernant la comp. de J. (23
vols., Paris, 1863-86); Idem, Les parlements et les jesuites
(Paris, 1867); Prat, mem pour servir a l'hist. du P. Brouet (Puy
1885); Idem, Recherches hist sur la comp. de J. en France du
temps du P. Coton, 1564-1627 (Lyons, 1876); Idem, Maldonat et
l'universite de Paris (Paris, 1856); Donarche, L'univ de paris
et les jesuites (Paris, 1888); Piaget, L'etablissement des
jesuites en France 1540-1660 (Leyden, 1893); Chossat, les
jesuites et leurs oeuvres a Avignon (Avignon, 1896). Germany,
etc,--Agricola (continued by Flotto, Kropf), Hist. prov. Soc.
Jesu Germaniae superioris (1540-1641) (5 vols, Augsburg and
Munich, 1727-54); Hansen, Rhein. Akten zur Gesch. des
Jesuitenordens 1542-82 (1896); Jansen, History of the German
People, tr. Christie (London 1905-10); Duhr, Gesch. der Jesuiten
in den Landern deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907); Kroess, Gesch
der bohmischen Prov. der G. J. (Vienna, 1910); Menderer, Annal.
Ingolstadiensis academ. (Ingolstadt, 1782); Reiffenberg, Hist.
Soc. Jesu ad Rhenum inferiorum (Cologne, 1764); Argento, De
rebus Soc.jesu in regba Poloniae (Cracow, 1620); Pollard, The
Jesuits in Poland, (Oxford, 1882); Zalenski, Hist. of the Soc.
of Jesus in Poland (in Polish, 1896-1906); Idem, The Jesuits in
White Russia (in Polish, 1874; Fr. tr., Paris, 1886); Pierling,
Antonii Possevini moscovitica (1883); Rostwoski, Hist. Soc. Jesu
prov. Lithuanicarum provincialum (Wilna, 1765); Scmidl, Hist.
Soc. Jesu prov. Bohemiae, 1555-1653 (Prague, 1747-59); Socher,
Hist. prov. Austriae Soc. Jesu, 1540-1590 (Vienna, 1740);
Steinhuber, Gesch. des Coll. Germanicum-Hungaricum (Freiburg,
1895). Belgium.--Manare, De rebus Soc. Jesu commentarius, ed.
Delplace (Florence, 1886); Waldack, Hist. prov.
Flandro-beligicae Soc. Jesu anni 1638 (Ghent, 1837). England,
Ireland, Scotland. Foley, Records of the English Prov. of the
Soc. of Jesus--includes Irish and Scottish Jesuits (London,
1877); Spillmann, Die englischen Martyrer unter Elizabeth bis
1583 (Freiburg, 1888), Forbes-Leith, Narr. of Scottish Catholics
(Edinburgh, 1885). Idem, Mem. of Soc. Cath. (London, 1909);
Hogan, Ibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); Idem, Distinguished
Irishmen of the XVI century (London, 1894) Meyer, England und
die kath. Kirke unter Elizabeth (Rome, 1910); More, Hist. prov.
Anglicanae (St-Omer, 1660); Persons, Memoirs, ed. Pollen in
Cath. Record Society, II (London, 1896, 1897), iii; Pollen,
Politics of the Eng. Cath. under Elisabeth in The Month (London,
1902-3; Taunton, The Jesuits in England (London, 1901).
Missions: Letters from the missions were instituted by St.
Ignatius. At first they were circulated in MS. and contained
home as well as foreign news; e.g. Litterae quadrimestres (5
vols.) lately printed in the Monumenta series, mentioned above.
Later on, Litterae annuae, in yearly or triennial volumes (1581
to 1614) at Rome, Florence, etc., index with last vol. Second
series (1650-54) at Dilligen and Prague. The annual letters
continued, and still continue in MS., but very irregularly. The
tendency was to leave home letters in MS. for the future
historian, and to publish the more interesting reports from
abroad. Hence many early issues of Avvisi and Litterae, etc.,
from India, China, Japan, and later on the celebrated Relations
of the French Canadian missions (Paris, 1634-). From these
ever-growing printed and manuscript sources were drawn up the
collections--Lettres edifiantes et curieuses ecrites par
quelques missionaries del la comp. de Jesu (Paris, 1702;
frequently reprinted with different matter in 4 to 34 volumes.
The original title was Lettres de quelques missionaries); Der
Neue-Weltbott mit allerhand Nachtrichten deren Missionar. Soc.
Jesu, ed. Stocklein and others (36 vols. Augsburg, Gratz,
1738-); Hounder, Deutcher jesuiten Missionaere (Freiburg, 1899).
For literature of particular missions see those titles.
Leclercq, Premier etablissment de la foy dans la Nouvelle-France
(Paris, 1619), tr. Shea (New York 1881); Campbell, Pioneer
Priests of North America, (New York, 1908-11); Bourne, Spain in
America (New York, 1904); Parkman, The Jesuits in North America
(New York, Boston, 1868); Rochemonteix, Les jesuites et la
Nouvelle-France au xviii(e) siecle (Paris, 1896); Charlevoux,
Hist de la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1744). Campbell (B.U.), Biog.
Sketch of Fr. Andrew White and his Companions, the first
Missionaries of Maryland (in the Metropolitan Catholic Almanac,
Baltimore, 1841); Idem. Hist. Sketch of the Early Christian
Missions among the Indians of Maryland (Maryland Hist. Soc., 8
Jan 1846); Johnson, The Foundation of Maryland in Maryland Hist.
Soc. Fund Publications no. 18; Kip. Early Jesuit Missionaries in
North America (New York, 1882); Idem, Hist Scenes from Old
Jesuit Missions (New York, 1875); The Jesuit Relations. ed.
Thwaites (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901); Shea, Jesuits,
Recollects, and Indians, in Winsor, Narrative and Critical Hist.
of America (Boston, 1889); Hughes, Hist. of the Soc. of Jesus in
North America, Colonial and Federal (Cleveland, 1908-); Shea,
Hist. of the Catholic Church within the limits of the United
States (New York, 1886-92); Schall, Hist. relatio de ortu et
progressu fidei orthod. in regno Chinesi 1581-1669 (Ratisbon,
1872); Ricci, Opere storiche, ed. Venturi (Macerata, 1911).
J.H. POLLEN
The Suppression of the Jesuits (1770-1773)
The Suppression of the Jesuits (1750-1773)
The Suppression is the most difficult part of the history of the
Society. Having enjoyed very high favor among Catholic peoples,
kings, prelates, and popes for two centuries and a half
centuries, it suddenly becomes an object of frenzied hostility,
is overwhelmed with obloquy, and overthrown with dramatic
rapidity. Every work of the Jesuits -- their vast missions,
their noble colleges, their churches -- all is taken from them
or destroyed. They are banished, and their order suppressed,
with harsh and denunciatory words even from the pope. What makes
the contrast more striking is that their protectors for the
moment are former enemies -- the Russians and Frederick of
Prussia. Like many intricate problems, its solution is best
found by beginning with what is easy to understand. We look
forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones,
the pope's not excluded, which had been active in the
Suppression is overwhelmed. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy
become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the
Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of the Society was due
to the same causes which in further devlopment brought about the
French Revolution. These causes varied somewhat in different
countries. In France, many influences combined, as we shall see,
from Jansenism to Free-thought, to the then prevalent impatience
with the old order of things (see France, VI, 172). Some have
thought that the Suppression was primarily due to these currents
of thought. Others attribute it chiefly to the absolutism of the
Bourbons. For, though in France the king was averse to the
Suppression, the destructive forces acquired their power because
he was too indolent to exercise control, which at that time he
alone possessed. Outside France it is plain that autocracy,
acting through high-handed ministers, was the determining cause.
Portugal
In 1750, Joseph I of Portugal appointed Sebastian Joseph
Carvalho, afterwards Marquis of Pombal (q.v.) as his first
minister. Carvalho's quarrel with the Jesuits began with a
quarrel over an exchange of Territory with Spain. San Sacramento
was exchanged for the Seven Reductions of Paraguay which were
under Spain. The Society's wonderful missions there were coveted
by the Portuguese, who believed the Jesuits were mining gold. So
the Indians were ordered to quit their country; and the Jesuits
endeavored to lead them quietly to the distant land allotted to
them. But owing to the harsh conditions imposed, the Indians
rose in arms against the transfer, and the so-called war of
Paraguay ensued, which, of course, was disasterous to the
Indians. Then step by step the quarrel with the Jesuits was
pushed to extremities. The weak king was persuaded to remove
them from Court; a war of pamphlets against him was commenced;
the Fathers were first forbidden to undertake the temporal
administration of the missions, and then they were deported from
America.
On 1 April 1758, a brief was obtained from the aged pope
Benedict XIV, appointing Cardinal Saldanha to investigate the
allegations against the Jesuits, which had been raised in the
King of Portugal's name. But it does not follow that the pope
had forejudged the case against the order. On the contrary, if
we take into view all the letters and instructions sent to the
Cardinal, we see that the pope was distinctly skeptical as to
the gravity of the alleged abuses. He ordered a minute inquiry,
but one conducted so as to safeguard the reputation of the
Society. All matters of serious importance were to be referred
back to himself. The pope died five weeks later on 3 May. On 15
May, Saldanha, having received the Brief only a fortnight
before, omitting the thorough house-to-house visitation that had
been ordered, and pronouncing on the issues which the pope had
reserved to himself, declared that the Jesuits were guilty of
having exercised illicit, public, and scandalous commerce both
in Portugal and in its colonies. Three weeks later, at Pombal's
instigation, all faculties were withdrawn from the Jesuits
throughout the patriachate of Lisbon. Before Clement XIII (q.v.)
had beome pope (6 July, 1758) the work of the Society had been
destroyed, and in 1759 it was civilly suppressed. The last step
was taken inconsequence of a plot against the chamberlain
Texeiras, but suspected to have been aimed at the king, and of
this the Jesuits were supposed to have approved. But the grounds
of suspicion were never clearly stated, much less proved. The
height of Pombal's persecution was reached with the burning
(1761) of the saintly Father Malagrida (q.v.), ostensibly for
heresy; while the other Fathers, who had been crowded into
prisons, were left to perish by the score. Intercourse between
the Church of Portugal and Rome was broken off till 1770.
France
The Suppression in France was occasioned by the injuries
inflicted by the English navy on French commerce in 1755. The
Jesuit missionaries held a heavy stake in Martinique. They did
not and could not trade, that is, buy cheap to sell dear, any
more than any other religious. But they did sell the products of
their great mission farms, in which many natives were employed,
and this was allowed, partly to provide for the current expenses
of the mission, partly in order to protect the simple, childlike
natives from the common plague of dishonest intermediaries. Pere
Antoin La Vallette, superior of the Martinique missions, managed
these transactions with no little success, and success
encouraged him to go too far. He began to borrow money to work
the large undeveloped resources of the colony, and a strong
letter from the govenor of the island dated 1753 is extant in
praise of his enterprise. But on the outbreak of war, ships
carrying goods of an estimated value of 2,000,000 livres were
captured and he suddenly became a bankrupt, for very large sum.
His creditors were egged on to demand payment from the
procurator of Paris, but he, relying on what certainly was the
letter of the law, refused responsibillity for the debts of an
independent mission, though offering to negotiate for a
settlement, for which he held out assured hopes. The creditors
went to the courts, and an order was made (1760) obliging the
Society to pay, and giving leave to distrain in the case of
non-payment.
The Fathers, on the advice of their lawyers, appealed to the
Grand'chambre of the Parlement of Paris. This turned out to be
an imprudent step. For not only did the Parlement support the
lower court, 8 May, 1761, but having once gotten the case into
its hands, the Society's enemies in that assembly determined to
strike a great blow at the order. Enemies of every sort
combined. The Jansenists were numerous among the gens-de-robe,
and at that moment were especailly keen to be revenged on the
orthodox party. The Sorbonnists, too, the university rivals of
the great teaching order, joined in the attack. So did the
Gallicans, the Philosophes, and the Encyclopedistes. Louis XIV
was weak and the influence of his court divided; while his wife
and children were earnestly in favor of the Jesuits, his able
first minister, the Duc de Choiseul (q.v.) played into the hands
of the Parlement, and the royal mistress, Madame de Pompadour,
to whom the Jesuits had refused absolution, was a bitter
opponent. The determination of the Parlement of Paris in time
bore down all opposition. The attack on the Jesuits, as such,
was opened by the Janseistic Abbe Chauvelin, 17 April, 1762, who
denounced the Constitution of the Jesuits as the cause of the
alleged defalcations of the order. This was followed by the
compte-rendu on the Constitutions, 3-7 July, 1762, full of
misconceptions, but not yet extravagent in hostility. Next day
Chauvelin descended to a vulgar but efficacious means of
exciting odium by denouncing the Jesuits' teaching and morals,
especially on the matter of tyrannicide.
In the Parlement, the Jesuits' case was now desperate. After a
long conflict with the crown in which the indolent
minister-ridden sovereign failed to assert his will to any
purpose, the Parlement issued its well-known " Extraits des
assertions", a blue-book, as we might say, containing a
congeries of passages from Jesuit theologians and canonists, in
which they were alleged to teach every sort of immoratlity and
error, from tyrannicide, magic, and Arianism, to treason,
Socinianism, and Lutheranism. On 6 August, 1762, the final arret
was issued condeming the Society to extinction, but the king's
intervention brought eight month's delay. In favour of the
Jesuits, there had been some striking testimonies, especailly
from the French clergy in the two convocations summoned on 30
November, 1761, and 1 May, 1762. But the series of letters and
addresses published by Clement XIII afford a truely irrefragable
attestation in favour of the order. Nothing, however, availed to
stay the Parlement. The king's counter-edict delayed indeed the
execution of its arret, and meantime a compromise was suggested
by the Court. If the French Jesuits would stand apart from the
order, under a French vicar, with French customs, the Crown
would still protect them. In spite of the dangers of refusal the
Jesuits would not consent; and upon consulting the pope, he (not
Ricci) used the famous phrase Sint ut sunt, aut non sint (de
Ravignan, "Clement XIII", I, 105, the words are attributed to
Ricci also). Louis's intervention hindered the execution of the
arret against the Jesuits until 1 April, 1763. The colleges were
then closed, and by a further arret of 9 March, 1764, the
Jesuits were required to renounce their vows under pain of
banishment. Only three priests and a few scholastics accepted
the conditions. At the end of November, 1764, the king
unwillingly signed an edict dissolving the Society throughout
his dominions, for they were still protected by some provincial
parlements, as Franche-Comte, Alsace, and Artois. But in the
draft of the edict, he canceled numerous clauses, which implied
that the Society was guilty; and writing to Choiseul, he
concluded with the weak but significant words: "If I adopt the
advice of others for the peace of my realm, you must make the
changes I propose, or I will do nothing. I say no more, lest I
should say too much."
Spain, Naples, and Parma
The Suppression in Spain, and its quasi-dependencies, Naples and
Parma, and in the Spanish colonies was carried through by
autocratic kings and ministers. Their deliberations were
conducted in secrecy, and they purposely kept their
deliberations to themselves. It is only in late years that a
clue has been traced back to Bernardo Tenucci, the anti-clerical
minister of Naples, who acquired a great influence over Charles
III before the king passed from the throne of Naples to that of
Spain. In this minister's correspondence are found all the ideas
which from time to time guided the Spanish policy. Charles, a
man of good moral character, had entrusted his government to the
Count Aranda and other followers of Voltaire; and he had brought
from Italy a finance minister, whose nationality made the
government unpopular, while his exactions led in 1766 to rioting
and the publications of various squibs, lampoons, and attacks
upon the administration. An extraordinary council was appointed
to investigate the matter, as it was declared that people so
simple as rioters could never have produced the political
pamphlets. They proceeded to take secret information, the tenor
of which is no longer known; but records remain to show that in
September, the council had resolved to incriminate the Society,
and that by 29 January 1767, its expulsion was settled. Secret
orders, which were to be opened at midnight between the first
and second of April, 1767, were sent to the magistrates of every
town where a Jesuit resided. The plan worked smoothly. That
morning, 6000 Jesuits were marching like convicts to the coast,
where they were deported, first to the Papal States, and
ultimately to Corsica.
Tanucci pursued a similar policy in Naples. On 3 November the
religious, again without trial, and this time without even an
accusation, were marched across the frontier into the Papal
States, and threatened with death if they returned. It will be
noted that in these expulsions, the smaller the state, the
greater the contempt of the ministers for any forms of law. The
Duchy of Parma was the smallest of the so-called Bourbon courts,
and so aggressive in its anti-clericalism that Clement XIII
addressed to it (30 January, 1768) a monitorium, or warning,
that its excesses were punishable with ecclesiastical censures.
At this all parties to the Bourbon "Family Compact" turned in
fury against the Holy See, and demanded the entire destruction
of the Society. As a preliminary, Parma at once drove the
Jesuits out of its territories, confiscating as usual all their
possessions.
Clement XIV
From this time till his death (2 February 1769), Clement XIII
was harassed with the utmost rudeness and violence. Portions of
his states were seized by force, he was insulted to his face by
the Bourbon representatives, and it was made clear that, unless
he gave way, a great schism would ensue, such as Portugal had
already commenced. The conclave which followed lasted from 15
Feb. to May 1769. The Bourbon courts, through the so-called
"crown cardinals", succeeded in excluding any of the party,
nicknamed Zelanti, who would have taken a firm position in
defense of the order, and finally elected Lorenzo Ganganelli,
who took the name Clement XIV. It has been stated by
Cretineau-Joly (Clement XIV, p. 260), that Ganganelli, before
his election, engaged himself to the crown cardinals by some
sort of stipulation that he would suppress the Society, which
would have involved an infraction of the conclave oath. This is
now disproved by the statement of the Spanish agent Azpuru, who
was specially deputed to act with the crown cardinals. He wrote
on 18 May, just before the election, "None of the cardinals has
gone so far as to propose to anyone that the Suppression be
assured by a written or spoken promise", and just after 25 May
he wrote, "Ganganelli neither made a promise nor refused it". On
the other hand it seems he did write words, which were taken by
the crown cardinals as an indication that the Bourbons would get
their way with him (de Bernis's letters of 28 July and 20
November, 1769).
No sooner was Clement on the throne than the Spanish court,
backed by the other members of the "Family Compact", renewed
their overpowering pressure. On 2 August, 1769, Choiseul wrote a
strong letter demanding the Suppression with two months, and the
pope now made his first written promise that he would grant the
measure, but he declared that he must have more time. Then began
a series of transaction, which some have not unnaturally been
interpreted as a devices to escape by delays from the terrible
act of destruction, toward which Clement was being pushed. He
passed more than two years in treating with the Courts of Turin,
Tuscany, Milan, Genoa, Bavaria, etc. which would not easily
consent to the Bourbon projects. The same ulterior object may
perhaps be detected in some of the minor annoyances now
inflicted on the Society. From several colleges, such as those
of Frascati, Ferrar, Bologna, and the Irish College at Rome, the
Jesuits were, after a prolonged examination, ejected with much
show of hostility. And there were moments, as for instance after
the fall of Choiseul, when it really seemed as though the
Society might have escaped; but eventually the obstinacy of
Charles III always prevailed.
In the middle of 1772 Charles sent a new ambassador to Rome, Don
Joseph Monino, afterwards Count Florida Blanca, a strong, hard
man, "full of artifice, sagacity, and dissimulation, and no one
more set on the suppression of the Jesuits". Heretofore, the
negotiations had been in the hands of clever, diplomatic
Cardinal de Bernis, French ambassador to the pope. Monino now
took the lead, de Bernis now coming in afterward as a friend to
urge the acceptance of his advice. At last, on 6 September,
Monino gave in a paper suggesting a line for the pope to follow,
which he did in part adopt, in drawing up the brief of
Suppression. By November the end was coming in sight, and in
December Clement put Monino into communication with a secretary;
and they drafted the instrument together, the minute being ready
by 4 January, 1773. By 6 February, Monino had got it back from
the pope in a form to be conveyed to the Bourbon courts, and by
8 June, their modifications having been taken account of, the
minute was thrown into its final form and signed. Still the pope
delayed until Monino constrained him to get copies printed; and
as these were dated, no delay was possible beyond that date,
which was 16 August, 1773. A second brief was issued which
determined the manner in which the Suppression was to be carried
out. To secure secrecy, one regulation was introduced which led,
in foreign countries, to some unexpected results. The Brief was
not to be published, Urbi et Orbi, but only to each college or
place by the local bishop. At Rome, the father-general was
confined first, at the English College, then in Castel S.
Angelo, with his assistants. The papers of the Society were
handed over to a special commission, together with its title
deeds and store of money, 40,000 scudi (about $50,000), which
belonged almost entirely to definite charities. An investigation
of the papers was begun, but never brought to any issue.
In the Brief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the
long list of allegations against the Society, with no mention of
what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the
other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not
definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to
represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife,
contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the Society
must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other
anomalous features cannot yet be given with certainty. The chief
reason for them no doubt was that the Suppression was an
administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on
judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many
difficulties, especially the open contradiction of preceding
popes, who had so often praised or confirmed the Society. Again,
such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were
different ways of interpreting the Brief which commended
themselves to Zelanti and Bourbonici respectively. The last word
on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poor
pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was
placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this
Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the
secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace".
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Cretineau-Joly, Clement XIV et les jesuites
(Paris, 1847); Danvilla y Collado, Reinado de Carolos III
(Madrid, 1893); Delplace, La suppression des jesuites in Etudes
(Paris, 5-20 July, 1908); Ferrar del Rio, Hist. del Reinado de
Carlos III (Madrid, 1856); de Ravignan, Clement XIII et Clement
XIV (Paris, 1854); Rosseau, Regne de Charles III d'Espagne
(Paris, 1907); Smith, Suppression of the Soc. of Jesus in The
Month (London, 1902-3); Theiner, Gesch. des Pontificats Clement
XIV (Paris, 1853; French tr., Brussels, 1853); Kobler, Die
Aufhebung der Gesellschaft Jesu (Linz, 1873); Weld, Suppression
of the Soc. of Jesus in the Portuguese Dominions (London, 1877);
Zalenski, The Jesuits in White Russia (in Polish, 1874; French
tr. Paris, 1886); Carayon, Le pere Ricci et la suppression de la
comp. de Jesus (Pointiers, 1869); Saint-Priest, Chute des
jesuites (Paris, 1864); Nippold, Jesuitenorden von seiner
weiderherstellung (Mannheim, 1867).
J.H. POLLEN
History of the Jesuits (1773-1814)
The Jesuits During the Interim (1773-1814)
The execution of the Brief of Suppression having been largely
left to local bishops, there was room for a good deal of variety
in the treatment the Jesuits might receive in different places.
In Austria and Germany they were generally allowed to teach (but
with secular clergy as superiors); often they became men of mark
as preachers, like Beauregard, Muzzarelli, and Alexander Lanfant
(b. at Lyons, 6 Sept. 1726, and massacred in Paris, 3 Sept.
1793) and writers like Francios-X. de Feller (q.v.), Zaccharia,
Ximenes. The first to receive open official approbation of their
new works were probably the English Jesuits, who in 1778
obtained a Brief approving their well-known Academy of Liege
(now at Stonyhurst). But in Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia,
the Empress Catherine and King Frederick II desired to maintain
the Society as a teaching body. They forbade the bishops to
promulgate the Brief until their placet was obtained. Bishop
Massalski in White Russia, 19 September, 1773 therefore ordered
the Jesuit superiors to continue to exercise jurisdiction till
further notice. On 2 February, 1780, with the approbation of
Bishop Siestrzencewicz's Apostolic visitor, a novitiate was
opened. To obtain higher sanction for what had been done, the
envoy Benislaski was sent by Catherine to Rome. But it must be
remembered that the animus of the Boubon courts against the
Society was still unchecked; and in some countries, as in
Austria under Joseph II, the situation was worse than before.
There were many in the Roman Curia who had worked their way up
by their activity against the order, or held pensions created
out of former Jesuit property. Pius VI declined to meet
Catherine's requests. All he could do was express an indefinite
assent by word of mouth, without issuing any written documents,
or observing the usual formalities; and he ordered that strict
secrecy should be observed about the whole mission. Benislaski
received these messages on 12 March, 1783, and later gave the
Russian Jesuits an attestation of them (24 July, 1785).
On the other hand, it can cause no wonder that the enemies of
the Jesuits should from the first have watched the survival in
White Russia with jealousy, and have brought pressure to bear on
the pope to ensure their suppression. He was constrained to
declare that he had not revoked the Brief of Suppression, and
that he regarded as an abuse anything done against it, but that
the Empress Catherine would not allow him to act freely (29
July, 1783). These utterances were not in real conflict with the
answer given to Benislaski, which only amount to an assertion
that the escape from the Brief by the Jesuits in Russia was not
schismatical, and that the pope approved of their continuing as
they were doing. Their existence was therefore legitimate, or at
least not illegitimate, though positive approval in legal form
did not come until Pius VII's brief "Catholicae Fidei" (7 March,
1801). Meanwhile the same or similar causes to those which
brought about the Suppression of the Society were leading to the
disruption of the whole civil order. The French Revolution
(1789) was overthrowing every throne that had combined against
the Jesuits, and in the anguish of that trial, many were the
cries for the re-establishment of the order. But amid the
turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars, during the long captivity of
Pius VI (1798-1800) and of Pius VII (1809-1814), such a
consummation was impossible. The English Jesuits, however (whose
academy at Liege, driven over to England by the French invasion
of 1794, had been approved by a brief in 1796), succeeded in
obtaining oral permission from Pius VII for their aggregation to
the Russian Jesuits, 27 May, 1803. The commission was to be kept
secret, and was not even communicated by the pope to Propaganda.
Next winter, its prefect, Cardinal Borgia, wrote a hostile
letter, not indeed canceling the vows take, or blaming what had
been done, but forbidding the bishops "to recognize the Jesuits"
or "to admit their privileges until their obtained permission
from the Congregation of Propaganda.
Considering the extreme difficulties of the times, we cannot
wonder at orders being given from Rome which were not always
quite consistent. Broadly speaking, however, we see that the
popes worked their way towards a restoration of the order by
degrees. First, by approving community life, which had been
specifically forbidden by the Brief of Suppression (this was
done in England in 1778). Second, by permitting vows (for
England in 1803). Third, by restoring the full privileges of a
religious order (these were not recognized in England until
1829). The Society was extended by Brief from Russia to the
Kingdom of Naples, 30 July, 1804; but on the invasion of the
French in 1806, all houses were dissolved, except those in
Sicily. The Superior in Italy during these changes was the
Venerable Giuseppe M. Pignatelli (q.v.). In their zeal for the
re-establishment of the Society some of the ex-Jesuits united
themselves into congregations which might, while avoiding the
now-unpopular name of Jesuits, preserve some of its essential
features. Thus arose the Fathers of Faith (Peres de la Foi),
founded with papal sanction by Nicholas Paccanari in 1797. A
somewhat similar congregation, called "The Fathers of the Sacred
Heart", had been commenced in 1794 in Belgium, under Pere
Charles de Broglie, who was succeeded by Pere Joseph Varin as
superior. By the wish of Pius VI, the two congregations
amalgamated, and were generally known as the Paccanarists. They
soon spread to many lands; Paccanari, however, did not prove to
be a good superior, and seemed to be working against a union
with the Jesuits still in Russia; this caused Pere Varin and
others to leave him. Some of them entered the Society in Russia
at once; and at the Restoration, the others joined en masse.
(See Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the).
J.H. POLLEN
The Restored Jesuits (1814-1912)
The Jesuits After the Restoration (1814-1912)
Pius VII had resolved to restore the Society during his
captivity in France; and after his return to Rome he did so with
little delay; 7 August, 1814, by the Bull "Solicitudo omnium
ecclesiarum," and therewith, the general in Russia, Thaddeus
Brzozowski, acquired universal jurisdiction. After the
permission to continue given by Pius VI, the first Russian
congregation had elected as vicar-general Stanislaus Czerniewicz
(17 Oct., 1782-7 July 1785), who was succeeded by Gabriel
Lenkiewicz (27 Sept., 1785-10 Nov., 1798) and Francis Kareu (1
Feb., 1799-20 July, 1902). On the receipt of the Brief
"Catholicae Fidei", of 7 March, 1801, his title was changed from
vicar-general to general. Gabriel Gruber succeeded (10 Oct.,
1802-26 March 1805) and was followed by Thaddeus Brzozowski (2
Sept., 1805). Almost simultaneously with the death of the
latter, 5 Feb., 1820, the Russians, who had banished the Jesuits
from St. Petersburg in 1815, expelled them from the whole
country. It seems a remarkable providence that Russia, contrary
to all precedent, should have protected the Jesuits just at the
time when all other nations turned against them, and reverted to
her normal hostility when the Jesuits began to find toleration
elsewhere. Upon the decease of Brzozowski, Father Petrucci, the
vicar, fell under the influence of the still-powerful
anti-Jesuit party to Rome, and proposed to alter some points in
the Institute. The twentieth general congregation took a severe
view of his proposals, expelled him from the order, and elected
Father Aloysius Fortis (18 Oct, 1820-27 Jan, 1829) (q.v.); John
Roothaan succeeded (9 July 1829-8 May 1853) and was followed by
Peter Beckx (q.v.) (2 July, 1853-4 March, 1887). Anton Maria
Anderledy, vicar-general on 11 May, 1884, became general on
Beckx's death, and died on 18 Jan., 1892; Louis Martin (2 Oct,
1892-18 April, 1906). Father Martin commenced a new series of
histories of the Society, to be based on the increasing
materials now available, and to deal with many problems about
which older annalists, Orlandi and his successors, were not
curious. Volumes by Astrain, Duhr, Fouqueray, Hughes, Kroess,
Tacchi-venturi have appeared. The present general, Francis
Xavier Wernz, was elected on 8 Sept., 1906. Though the Jesuits
of the nineteenth century cannot show a martry-roll as brilliant
as that of their predecessors, the persecuting laws passed
against them surpass in number, extent, and continuance those
endured by previous generations. The practical exclusion from
university teaching, the obligation of military service in many
countries, the wholesale confiscations of religious property,
and the dispersion of twelve of its eldest and once most
flourishing provinces are very serious hindrances to religious
vocations. On a teaching order such blows fall very heavily. The
cause of trouble has generally been due to that propaganda of
irreligion which was developed during the Revolution and is
still active through Freemasonry in those lands in which the
Revolution took root.
France
This is plainly seen in France. In that country, the Society
began in 1815 with the direction of some petits seminaries and
congregations, and by giving missions. They were attacked by the
liberals, especially by the Comte de Montlosier in 1823, and
their schools, one of which St-Achuel, already contained 800
students, were closed in 1829. The Revolution of July (1830)
brought them no relief; but in the visitation of cholera in 1832
the Fathers pressed to the fore, and so began to recover
influence. In 1845, there was another attack by Thiers, which
drew out the answer of de Ravignan (q.v.). The revolution of
1848 at first sent them again into exile, but the liberal
measures which succeeded, especially the freedom of teaching,
enabled them to return and to open many schools (1850). In the
later days of the Empire, greater difficulties were raised, but
with the advent of the Third Republic (1870), these restrictions
were removed and progress continued, until, after threatening
measures in 1878, came the decree of 29 March, 1880, issued by
M. Jules Ferry. This brought about a new dispersion and a
substitution of staffs of non-religious teachers in the Jesuit
colleges. But the French government did not press their
enactments, and the Fathers returned by degrees; and before the
end of the century, their houses and schools in France were as
prosperous as ever. Then came the overwhelming Associations laws
of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, leading to renewed by not complete
dispersions and to the re-introduction of non-religious staffs
in the colleges. The right of the order to hold property was
also violently suppressed; and, by a refinement of cruelty, any
property suspected of being held by a congregation may now be
confiscated, unless it is proved not to be so held. Other
clauses of this law penalize any meetings of the members of a
congregation. The order is under an iron hand from which no
escape is, humanly speaking, possible. For the moment
nevertheless public opinion disapproves of its rigid execution,
and thusfar in spite of all sufferings, of the dispersal of all
houses, the confiscation of churches and the loss of practically
all property and schools, the numbers of the order have been
maintained, nay slightly increased, and so too have the
opportunities for work, especially in literature and theology,
etc. (See also Carayon; Deschamps; Du Lac; Olivant; Ravignan.)
Spain
In Spain the course of events has been similar. Recalled by
Ferdinand VII in 1815, the Society was attacked by the
Revolution of 1820; and twenty-five Jesuits were slain at Madrid
in 1822. The Fathers, however, returned after 1823 and took part
in the management of the military school and the College of
Nobles at Madrid (1827). But in 1834 they were again attacked at
Madrid, fourteen were killed and the whole order was banished on
4 July, 1835, by a Liberal ministry. After 1848 they began to
return and were resettled after the Concordat, 26 Nov., 1852. At
the Revolution of 1868 they were again banished (12 Oct.), but
after a few years they were allowed to come back and have since
made great progress. At the present time, however, another
expulsion is threatened (1912). In Portugal, the Jesuits were
recalled in 1829, dispersed again in 1834; but afterwards
returned. Though they were not formally sanctioned by law, they
had a large college and several churches, from which, however,
they were driven out in October, 1910, with great violence and
cruelty.
Italy
In Italy they were expelled from Naples (1820-21) but in 1836
there were admitted to Lombardy. Driven out by the Revolution of
1848 from almost the whole peninsula, they were able to return
when peace was restored, except to Turin. Then with the gradual
growth of United Italy they were step by step suppressed again
by law everywhere, and finally at Rome in 1871. But though
formally suppressed and unable to keep schools, except on a very
small scale, the law is so worded that it does not press at
every point, nor is it often enforced with acrimony. Numbers do
not fall off, and activities increase. In Rome, they have
charge, inter alia, of the Gregorian University, the "Institutum
Biblicum", and the German and Latin-American colleges.
Germanic Provinces
Of the Germanic Provinces, that of Austria may be said to have
been recommenced by the immigration of many Polish Fathers from
Russia to Galicia in 1820 and colleges were founded at Tarnopol,
Lemberg, Linz (1837), and Innsbruck in 1838, in which they were
assigned the theological faculty in 1856. The German province
properly so called could at first make foundations only in
Switzerland at Brieg (1814) and Freiburg (1818). But after the
Sonderbund, they were obliged to leave, then being 264 in number
(111 priests). They were now able to open several houses in the
Rhine provinces, etc., making steady progress until they were
ejected during Bismark's Kulturkampf (1872), when they numbered
755 members (351 priests). They now count 1150 (with 574
priests) and are known throughout the world by their excellent
publications. (See Antoniewicz; Deharbe; Hasslacher; Pesch; Roh;
Spillman.)
Belgium
The Belgian Jesuits were unable to return to their country till
Belgium was separated from Holland in 1830. Since then they have
prospered exceedingly. In 1832, when they became a separate
province, they numbered 105; at their 75 years' jubilee in 1907,
they numbered 1168. In 1832, two colleges with 167 students; in
1907, 15 colleges with 7564 students. Congregations of the
Blessed Virgin, originally founded by a Belgian Jesuit, still
flourish. In Belgium, 2529 such congregations have been
aggregated to the Prima Primaria at Rome, and of these 156 are
under Jesuit direction. To say nothing of missions and of
retreats to convents, diocese, etc., the province had six houses
of retreats, in which 245 retreats were given to 9840 persons.
Belgium supplies the foreign missions of Eastern Bengal and the
diocese of Galle in Ceylon. In the bush country of Chota Nagpur,
there began, in 1887, a wonderful movement of aborigines (Koles
and Ouraons) toward the Church, and the Catholics in 1907
numbered 137,120 (i.e. 62,385 baptized and 74,735 catechumens).
Over 35,000 conversions had been made in 1906, owing to the
penetration of Christianity into the district of Jashpur.
Besides this there are excellent colleges at Darjeeling and at
Kurseong; at Candy in Ceylon the Jesuits have charge of the
great pontifical seminary for educating native clergy for the
whole of India. In all they have 442 churches, chapels, or
stations, 479 schools, 14,467 scholars, with about 167,000
Catholics, and 262 Jesuits, of whom 150 are priests. The Belgian
Fathers have also a flourishing mission in the Congo, in the
districts of Kwango and Stanley Pool, which was begun in 1893;
in 1907, the converts already numbered 31,402.
England
Nowhere did the Jesuits get through the troubles inevitable to
the interim more easily than in conservative England. The
college at Liege continued to train their students in the old
tradition, while the English bishop permitted the ex-Jesuits to
maintain their missions and a sort of corporate discipline. But
there were difficulties in recognizing the restored order, lest
this should impede Emancipation (see Roman Catholic Relief
Bill), which remained in doubt for so many years. Eventually Leo
XII, on 1 Jan., 1829, declared the Bull of restoration to have
force in England. After this the Society grew, slowly at first,
but more rapidly afterwards. It had 73 members in 1815, 729 in
1910. The principal colleges are Stonyhurst (St. Omers, 1592,
migrated to Bruges, 1762, to Liege, 1773, to Stonyhurst, 1794);
Mount St. Mary's (1842); Liverpool (1842); Beaumont (1861);
Glasgow (1870); Wimbledon, London (1887); Stanford Hill, London
(1894); Leeds (1905). The 1910, the province had in England and
Scotland, besides the usual novitiate and houses of study, two
houses for retreats, 50 churches or chapels, attended by 148
priests. The congregations amounted to 97,641; baptisms, 3746;
confessions 844,079; Easter confessions, 81,065; Communions,
1,303,591; converts, 725; extreme unctions, 1698; marriages,
782; children in elementary schools, 18,328. The Guiana mission
(19 priests) has charge of about 45,000 souls; the Zambesi
mission (35 priests), 4679 souls. (See also the articles Morris;
Plowden; Porter; Stevenson; Coleridge; Harper.)
Ireland
There were 24 ex-Jesuits in Ireland in 1776, but by 1803, only
two. Of these, Father O'Callahan renewed his vows at Stonyhurst
in 1803, and he and Father Betagh, who was eventually the last
survivor, succeeded in finding some excellent postulants who
made their novitiate in Stonyhurst, their studies at Palermo,
and returned between 1812 and 1814, Father Betagh, who had
become vicar-general of Dublin, having survived to the year
1811. Father Peter Kenney (d. 1841) was the first superior of
the new mission, a man of remarkable eloquence, who when visitor
of the Society in America (1830-1833) preached by invitation
before Congress. From 1812-1813, he was vice-president of
Maynooth College under Dr. Murray, the co-adjutor bishop of
Dublin. The College of Clonowes Wood was begun in 1813; Tullabeg
in 1818 (now a house of both probations); Dublin (1841); Mungret
(Apostolic School, 1883). In 1883, too, the Irish bishops
trusted to the Society the University College, Dublin, in
connection with the late Royal University of Ireland. The marked
superiority of this college to the richly endowed Queen's
Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway contributed much to
establish the claim of the Irish Catholics to adequate
university education. When this claim had been met by the
present National University, the University College was returned
to the Bishops. Five Fathers now hold teaching posts in the new
university, and a hotel for students is being provided. Under
the Act of Catholic Emancipation (q.v.) 58 Jesuits were
registered in Ireland in 1830. In 1910 there were 367 in the
province, of whom 100 are in Australia, where they have four
colleges at and near Melbourne and Sydney, and missions in South
Australia.
United States of America
Under the direction of Bishop Carroll the members of the
Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen in Maryland were the
chief factors in founding and maintaining Georgetown College
(q.v.) from 1791 to 1805, when they resumed their relations with
the Society still existing in Russia, and were so strongly
reinforced by other members of the order from Europe that they
could assume full charge of the institution, which they have
since retained. On the Restoration of the Society in 1814 these
nineteen fathers constituted the mission of the United States.
For a time (1808 to 1817) some of them were employed in the
Diocese of New York just erected, Father Anthony Kohlmann (q.v.)
administering the diocese temporarily, others engaging in school
and parish work. In 1816, Gonzaga College, Washington, D. C.,
was founded. In 1833, the mission of the United States became a
province under the title of Maryland. Since then the history of
the province is a record of development proportionate with the
growth in Catholicity in the various fields specially cultivated
by the Society. The colleges of the Holy Cross, Worcester
(founded in 1843), Loyola College, Baltimore (1852), Boston
College (1863) have educated great numbers of young men for the
ministry and liberal professions. Up to 1879, members of the
Society had been labouring in New York as part of the New
York-Canada mission. In that year, they became affiliated with
the first American province under the title Maryland-New York.
This was added to the old province besides several residences
and parishes, the colleges of St. Frances Xavier and St. John
(now Fordham University), New York City, and St. Peter's
College, Jersey City, New Jersey. St. Joseph's College,
Philadelphia, was chartered in 1852, and the Brooklyn College
opened in 1908. In the same year, Canisius College, and two
parishes in Buffalo, and one parish in Boston for German
Catholics, with 88 members of the German province were
affiliated with this province, which has now (1912) 863 members
with 12 colleges and 13 parishes, 1 house of higher study for
the members of the Society, 1 novitiate in the New England and
Middle States, and in the Virginias, with the Mission of
Jamaica, British West Indies,
The Missouri province began as a mission from Maryland in 1823.
Father Charles van Quickenborn, a Belgian, led several young men
of his own nationality who were eager to work among the Indians,
among them De Smet (q.v.), Van Assche, and Verhaegen. As a rule,
the tribes were too nomadic to evangelize, and the Indian
schools attracted only a very small number of pupils. The
missions among the Osage and Pottawatomie were more permanent
and fruitful. It was with experience gathered in these fields
that Father De Smet started his mission in the Rocky Mountains
in 1840. A college, now St. Louis University, was opened in
1829. For ten years, 1838-48, a college was maintained at Grand
Coteau, Louisiana; in 1840, St. Xavier's was opened at
Cincinnati. With the aid of seventy-eight Jesuits, who came over
from Italy and Switzerland in the years of revolution, 1838-48,
two colleges were maintained, St. Joseph's, Bardstown, 1848
until 1861, another at Louisville, Kentucky, 1849-57. In this
last year, a college was opened at Chicago. The mission became a
province in 1863; since then, colleges have been opened at
Detroit, Omaha, Milwaukee, St. Mary's (Kansas). By accession of
part of the Buffalo mission when it was separated from the
German province in 1907, the Missouri province acquired an
additional 180 members, and colleges at Cleveland, Toledo, and
Prarie du Chein, besides several residences and missions. Its
members work in the Territory west of the Alleghenies as far as
Kansas and Omaha, and from the lakes to the northern line of
Tennessee and Oklahoma, and also in the Mission of British
Honduras (q.v.).
New Orleans
For five years, 1566-1571, members of the Peruvian province
laboured among the Indians along the east coast of Florida,
where Father Martines was massacred near St. Augustine in 1566.
They penetrated into Virginia, where eight of their number were
massacred by Indians at a station named Axaca, supposed to be on
the Rappahannock River. Later, Jesuits from Canada, taking as
their share of the Louisiana territory the Illinois country and
afterwards from the Ohio River to the gulf east of the
Mississippi, worked among the Chocktaw, Chickasaw, Natchez,
Yazoo. Two of their number were murdered by the Natchez, and one
by the Chickasaw. Their expulsion in 1763 is the subject of a
monograph by Carayon, "Documents inedits", XIV. Originally
evangelized by Jesuits from the Lyons province, the New Orleans
mission became a province in 1907, having seven colleges and
four residences. It has now 255 members working in the territory
north of the Gulf of Mexico to Missouri, and as far east as
Virginia.
California
In 1907, A province was formed in California, comprising the
missions of California, the Rocky Mountains, and Alaska (United
States). The history of these missions is narrated under
California Missions; Missions, Catholic Indian, of the United
States; Alaska; Idaho; Sioux Indians.
New Mexico
In the mission of New Mexico ninety-three Jesuits are occupied
in the college at Denver, Colorado, and in various missions in
that state, Arizona, and New Mexico; the mission depends on the
Italian province of Naples. In all the provinces of the United
States there are 6 professional schools with 4363 students; 26
colleges with full courses, with 2417, and 34 preparatory and
high schools with 8735 pupils.
Canada
Jesuits returned to Canada from St. Mary's College, Kentucky,
which had been taken over, in 1834, by members of the province
of France. When St. Mary's was given up in 1846, the staff came
to take charge of St. John's College, Fordham, New York, thus
forming with their fellows in Montreal the New York-Canada
mission. This mission lasted till 1879, the Canadian division
having by that year 1 college, 2 residences, 1 novitiate, 3
Indian missions, and 131 members. In 1888 the mission received
$160,000 as its part of the sum paid by the Province of Quebec
in compensation for the Jesuit estates appropriated under George
III by imperial authority, and transferred to the authorities of
the former Province of Canada, all parties thus agreeing that
the full amount, $400,000, thus allowed was far short of the
value of the estates, estimated at $2,000,000. The settlement
was ratified by the pope, and the legislature of the Province of
Quebec, and the balance was divided among the archdiocese of
Quebec, Montreal, and other diocese, the Laval University
besides receiving, in Montreal, $40,000 and in Quebec, $100,000.
In 1907 the mission was constituted a province. It now has two
colleges in Montreal, one at St. Boniface with 263 students in
the collegiate and 722 in the preparatory classes, 2 residences
and churches in Quebec, one at Guelph, Indian missions, and
missions in Alaska, and 309 members.
Mexico
In Mexico (New Spain) Jesuit missionaries began their work in
1571, and prior to their expulsion, in 1767, they numbered 678
members of whom 468 were natives. They had over 40 colleges or
seminaries, 5 residences, and 6 missionary districts, with 99
missions. The mission included Cuba, lower California, and as
far south as Nicaragua. Three members of the suppressed Society
who were in Mexico at the time of the Restoration formed a
nucleus for its re-establishment there in 1816. In 1820, there
were 32, of whom 15 were priests and 3 scholastics, in care of 4
colleges and 3 seminaries. They were dispersed in 1821. Although
invited back in 1843, they could not agree to the limitations
put on their activities by General Santa Anna, nor was the
prospect favourable in the revolutionary condition of the
country. Four of their number returning in 1854, the mission
prospered, and in spite of two dispersions, 1859 and 1873, it
has continued to increase in number and activity. In August,
1907, it was reconstituted a province, It has now 326 members
with four colleges, 12 residences, 6 mission stations among the
Tarahumara, and a novitiate (see also Mexico; Pious Fund of the
Californias).
Gerard, Stonyhurst Centenary Record (Belfast, 1894); Corcoran,
Clongowes Centenary Record (Dublin, 1912); Woodstock Letters
(Woodstock College, Maryland, 1872-); Georgetown University
(Washington, 1891); The First Half Century of St. Ignatius
Church and College (San Francisco, 1905); Duhr, Akten. zur
Gesch. des Jesuit-missionen in Deutschland, 1842-72 (1903);
Boero, Istoria della vita del R. P. Pignatelli (Rome, 1857):
Poncelet, La comp. de Jesus en Belgique (Brussels, 1907);
Zaradona, Hist. de la extincion y restablecimiento de la comp.
de Jesus (1890); Jesuiteneorden von seiner Weiderherstellung
(Mannheim, 1867). History.--A. General.--Mon. historica Soc.
Jesu, ed. Rodeles (Madrid, 1894, in progress); Orlandini
(continued in turn by Sacchini, Jouvancy, and Cordara), Hist.
Soc. Jesu, 1540-1632 (8 vols. fol., Rome and Antwerp,
1615-1750), and Supplement (Rome, 1859); Bartoli, Dell' istoria
della comp. de Gesu (6 vols. fol., Rome, 1663-73);
Cretineau-Holy, Hist.de la comp. de Jesus (3rd ed., 3 vols.,
Paris 1859); B. N. The Jesuits: their Foundation and History
(London, 1879); [Wernz], Abriss der Gesch. der Gesellschaft Jesu
(Munster, 1876); Carrez Atlas geographicus Soc. Jesu (Paris,
1900); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der
katholkischen Kirche, III (Paderborn, 1908), 2-258, contains an
excellent bibliography; [Quesnel] Hist. des religieux de la
comp. de Jesus (Utrecht, 174). Non-Catholic:--Steitz-Zockler in
Realencycl. fur prot. Theol., s. v. Jesuitenorden; Hassenmuller,
Hist.jesuitici ordinis (Frankfurt, 1593); Hospinianus, Hist.
jesuitica (Zurich, 1619). B. Particular
Countries.--Italy--Tacchi-Venturi Storia della comp di G. in
Italia (Rome, 1910 in progress); Schinosi and Santagata Istoria
della comp. di G. appartenente al Regno di Napoli (Naples,
1706-57); Alberti, La Sicilia (Palermo, 1702); Aquilera
Provinciae Siculae Soc Jesu res gestae (Palermo, 1737-40);
Cappelletti, I gesuiti e la republica di Venizia (Venice. 1873);
Favaro, Lo studio di Padora e la comp de G. (Venice, 1877).
Spain.--Astrain, Hist. de la comp. de J. in asistencia di Espana
(Madrid, 1902, 3 vols., in progress); Alcazar, Chronohistoria de
la comp de J. en la provincia de la Toledo (Madrid 1710); Prat,
Hist du P. Ribedeneyra (Paris 1862). Portugal--Tellez, Chronica
de la comp. de J. na provincia de Portugal (Coimbra, 1645-7);
Franco, Synop. annal. Soc. Jesu in Lusitania ab anno 1 40 ad 172
(Augsburg, 1726); Teixeira, Docum. para a hist. dos Jesuitas em
Portugal (Coimbra, 1899). France.--Fouqueray, Hist de la comp de
J. en France (Paris. 1910); Carayon, Docum. ined. concernant la
comp. de J. (23 vols., Paris, 1863-86); Idem, Les parlements et
les jesuites (Paris, 1867); Prat, mem pour servir a l'hist. du
P. Brouet (Puy 1885); Idem, Recherches hist sur la comp. de J.
en France du temps du P. Coton, 1564-1627 (Lyons, 1876); Idem,
Maldonat et l'universite de Paris (Paris, 1856); Donarche,
L'univ de paris et les jesuites (Paris, 1888); Piaget,
L'etablissement des jesuites en France 1540-1660 (Leyden, 1893);
Chossat, les jesuites et leurs oeuvres a Avignon (Avignon,
1896). Germany, etc,--Agricola (continued by Flotto, Kropf),
Hist. prov. Soc. Jesu Germaniae superioris (1540-1641) (5 vols,
Augsburg and Munich, 1727-54); Hansen, Rhein. Akten zur Gesch.
des Jesuitenordens 1542-82 (1896); Jansen, History of the German
People, tr. Christie (London 1905-10); Duhr, Gesch. der Jesuiten
in den Landern deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907); Kroess, Gesch
der bohmischen Prov. der G. J. (Vienna, 1910); Menderer, Annal.
Ingolstadiensis academ. (Ingolstadt, 1782); Reiffenberg, Hist.
Soc. Jesu ad Rhenum inferiorum (Cologne, 1764); Argento, De
rebus Soc.jesu in regba Poloniae (Cracow, 1620); Pollard, The
Jesuits in Poland, (Oxford, 1882); Zalenski, Hist. of the Soc.
of Jesus in Poland (in Polish, 1896-1906); Idem, The Jesuits in
White Russia (in Polish, 1874; Fr. tr., Paris, 1886); Pierling,
Antonii Possevini moscovitica (1883); Rostwoski, Hist. Soc. Jesu
prov. Lithuanicarum provincialum (Wilna, 1765); Scmidl, Hist.
Soc. Jesu prov. Bohemiae, 1555-1653 (Prague, 1747-59); Socher,
Hist. prov. Austriae Soc. Jesu, 1540-1590 (Vienna, 1740);
Steinhuber, Gesch. des Coll. Germanicum-Hungaricum (Freiburg,
1895). Belgium.--Manare, De rebus Soc. Jesu commentarius, ed.
Delplace (Florence, 1886); Waldack, Hist. prov.
Flandro-beligicae Soc. Jesu anni 1638 (Ghent, 1837). England,
Ireland, Scotland. Foley, Records of the English Prov. of the
Soc. of Jesus--includes Irish and Scottish Jesuits (London,
1877); Spillmann, Die englischen Martyrer unter Elizabeth bis
1583 (Freiburg, 1888), Forbes-Leith, Narr. of Scottish Catholics
(Edinburgh, 1885). Idem, Mem. of Soc. Cath. (London, 1909);
Hogan, Ibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); Idem, Distinguished
Irishmen of the XVI century (London, 1894) Meyer, England und
die kath. Kirke unter Elizabeth (Rome, 1910); More, Hist. prov.
Anglicanae (St-Omer, 1660); Persons, Memoirs, ed. Pollen in
Cath. Record Society, II (London, 1896, 1897), iii; Pollen,
Politics of the Eng. Cath. under Elisabeth in The Month (London,
1902-3; Taunton, The Jesuits in England (London, 1901).
J.H. POLLEN
Jesuit Apologetic
Jesuit Apologetic
The accusations brought against the Society have been
exceptional for their frequency and fierceness. Many indeed
would be too absurd to deserve mention, were they not credited
even by cultured and literary people. Such for instance are the
charges that the Society was responsible for the Franco-Prussian
War, the affaire Dreyfus, the Panama scandal, the assassination
of popes, princes, etc. -- statements found in books and
periodicals of some pretense. So likewise is the so-called
Jesuit oath, a clumsy fabrication of the forger Robert Ware,
exposed by Bridget in "Blunders and Forgeries". The fallacy of
such accusations may often be detected by general principles.
A. Jesuits are fallible
Jesuits are fallible, and may have given some occasion to the
accuser. The charges laid against them would never have been
brought against angels, but they are not in the least
inconsistent with the Society being a body of good but fallible
men. Sweeping denials here and an injured tone would be
misplaced and liable to misconception. As an instance of Jesuit
fallibility, one may mention that writings of nearly one hundred
Jesuits have been placed on the Roman "Index". Since this
involves a reflection on Jesuit book-censors as well, it might
appear to be an instance of failure in an important matter. But
when we remember that the number of Jesuit writers exceeds
120,000, the proportion of those who have missed the mark cannot
be considered extraordinary; the Censure inflicted, moreover,
has never been of the graver kind. Many critics of the order,
who do not consider the Index censures discreditable, cannot
pardon so readily the exaggerated esprit de corps in which
Jesuits of limited experience occasionally indulge, especially
in controversies or while eulogizing their own confreres; nor
can they overlook the narrowness or bias with which some Jesuit
writers have criticized men of other lands, institutions,
education, though it is unfair to hold up the faults of a few as
characteristic of an entire body.
B. The Accusers
(1) In an oft-recited passage about the martyrs St. Ambrose
tells us: "Vere frustra impugnata qui apud impios et infidos
impietatis arcessitur cum fidei sit magister" (He in truth is
accused in vain of impiety by the impious and the faithless,
though he is a teacher of the faith). The personal equation of
the accuser is a correction of great moment; nevertheless it is
to be applied with equally great caution; on no other point is
an accused person so liable to make mistakes. Undoubtedly,
however, when we find a learned man like Harnack declaring
roundly (but without proofs) that Jesuits are not historians, we
may place this statement of his besides another of his
professional dicta, that the Bible is not history. If the same
principles underlie both propositions, the accusation against
the order will carry little weight. When an infidel government,
about to assail the liberties of the Church, begins by expelling
the Jesuits, on the accusation that they destroy the love of
freedom in their scholars, we can only say that no words of
theirs can counterbalance the logic of their acts. Early in this
century, the French Government urged as one of their reasons for
suppressing all the religious orders in France, among them the
Society, that the regulars were crowding the secular clergy out
of their proper spheres of activity and influence. No sooner
were the religious suppressed that the law separating Church and
State was passed to cripple and enslave the bishops and secular
clergy.
(2) Again it is little wonder that heretics in general, and
those in particular who impugn church liberties and the
authority of the Holy See, should be ever ready to assail the
Jesuits, who are forever bound to the defence of that see. It
seems stranger that the opponents of the Society should
sometimes be within the Church. Yet it is almost inevitable that
such opposition should at times occur. No matter how adequately
the canon law regulating the relations of regulars with the
hierarchy and clergy generally may provide for their peaceful
co-operation in missionary, educational and charitable
enterprises, there will necessarily be occasion for difference
of opinion, disputes over jurisdiction, methods, and similar
vital points which in the heat of controversy often embitter and
even estrange the parties at variance. Such religious
controversies arise between other religious orders and the
hierarchy and secular clergy; they are neither common nor
permanent, not the rule but the exception, so that they do not
warrant the sinister judgment that is sometimes formed of the
Society in particular as unable to work with others, jealous of
its own influence. Sometimes, especially when trouble of this
kind have affected broad questions of doctrine and discipline,
the agitation has reached immense proportions, and bitterness
has remained for years. The controversies De auxiliis lead to
violent explosions of temper, to intrigue, and to furious
language that was simply astonishing; and there were others, in
England for instance about the faculties of the archpriest, in
France about Gallicanism, which were almost equally memorable
for fire and fury. Odium theologicum is sure to call forth at
all times excitement of unusual keenness, but we may make
allowance for the early disputants because of the pugnacious
nature of the times. When the age quite approved of gentlemen
killing each other in duels on very slight provocation, there
can be little wonder that clerics, when aroused, should forget
propriety and self-restraint, sharpen their pen like daggers,
and, dipping them in gall, strike at any sensitive point of
their adversaries which they could injure. Charges put about by
such excited advocates must be received with the greatest
caution.
(3) The most embittered and the most untrustworthy members of
the Society (the are fortunately not very numerous) have ever
been deserters from its own ranks. We know with what malice and
venom some unfaithful priests are wont to assail the Church,
which they once believed to be Divine, and not dissimilar has
been the hatred of some Jesuits who have been untrue to their
calling.
C. Proximity to Christ always invites attacks
What is to be expected? The Society has certainly had some share
in the beatitude of suffering for persecutions sake; though it
is not true, however, to say that the society is the object of
universal detestation. Prominent politicians, who acts affect
the interest of millions, are much more hotly and violently
criticized, are much more freely denounced, caricatured, and
condemned in the course of a month, than the Jesuits singly or
collectively in a year. When once the politician is overthrown,
the world turns its fire upon the new holder of power, and it
forgets the man that is fallen. But the light attacks against
the Society never cease for long, and their cumulative effects
look more serious than it should, because people forget the long
spans of years which in its case intervene between the different
signal assaults. Another principle to remember is that the
enemies of the Church would never assail the Society at all,
were it not that it is conspicuously popular with large classes
of the Catholic community. Neither universal odium therefore,
nor freedom from all assault, should be expected, but charges
which, by exaggeration, inversion, satire, or irony, somehow
correspond to the place of the Society in the Church.
Not being contemplatives like the monks of old, Jesuits are not
decried as being lazy and useless. Not being called to fill
posts of high authority, or to rule, like popes and bishops,
Jesuits are not seriously denounced as tyrants, or maligned for
nepotism and similar misdeeds. Ignatius described his order as a
flying squadron ready for service anywhere, especially as
educators and missionaries. The principal charges against the
Society are misrepresentations of these qualities. If they are
ready for service in any part of the world, they are called
busybodies, mischief-makers, politicians with no attachment to
country. If they do not rule, at least they must be gasping,
ambitious, scheming, and wont to lower standards of morality, at
least to gain control of consciences. If they are good
disciplinarians, it will be said that it is by espionage and
suppression of individuality and independence. If they are
popular as schoolmasters, it will be said that they are good for
children, good perhaps as crammers, but bad educators, without
influence. If they are favorite confessors, their success with
be subscribed to their lax moral doctrines, to their casuistry,
and above all to their use of the maxim which is supposed to
justify any and every evil act:"the end justifies the means".
This perhaps is the most salient instance of the ignorance and
ill-will of their accusers. Their books are open to all the
world. Time and again those who impute to them as a body, or to
any of their publications, the use of this maxim to justify evil
of any sort, have been asked to cite one instance of the usage,
but all to no purpose. The signal failure of Hoensbroech to
establish before the civil courts of Trier and Cologne (30 July,
1905) any such example of Jesuit teaching, should silence this
and similar accusations forever.
D. The Jesuit Legend
It is curious that at the present day, even literary men have
next to no interest in the objective facts concerning the
Society, not even in those supposed to be to its disadvantage.
All attention is fixed to the Jesuit legend; encyclopedia
articles and general histories hardly concern themselves with
anything else. The legend, though it reached its present form in
the middle of the nineteenth century, began at a much earlier
period. The early persecutions of the Society (which counted
some 100 martyrs in Europe during its first century) were backed
up by fiery, loud, unscrupulous writers such as Hassenmueller
and Hospinian, who diligently collected and defended all the
charges against the Jesuits. The rude, criminous ideas which
these writers set forth received subtler traits of deceitfulness
and double-dealing through Zahorowski's "Monita Secreta
Societatis Jesu" (Cracow, 1614), a satire misrepresenting the
rule of the order, which is freely believed to be genuine by
credulous adversaries (see Monita Secreta). The current version
of the legend is late French, evolved during the long
revolutionary ferment which preceded the Third Empire. It began
with the denunciations of Montlosier (1824-27), and grew strong
(1833-45) in the University of Paris, which affected to consider
itself as the representative of the Gallican Sourbonne, of
Port-Royal, and of the Encyclopedie. The occasion for literary
hostilities was offered by attempts at University reform which,
so Liberals affected to believe, were instigated by Jesuits.
Hereupon the "Provinciales" were given a place in the University
curriculum, and Villemain, Theirs, Cousin. Michelet, Quinlet,
Libri, Mignet, and other respectable scholars succeeded by their
writings and denunciations in giving to anti-Jesuitism a sort of
literary vogue, not always with scrupulous observance of
accuracy or fairness. More harmful still to the order were the
plays, the songs, the popular novels against them. Of these the
most celebrated was Eugene Sue's "Juif errant" (Wandering Jew)
(1844), which soon became the most popular anti-Jesuit book ever
printed, and has done more than anything else to give final form
to the Jesuit legend.
The special character of this fable is that it has hardly
anything to do with the order at all, its traits being simply
copied from masonry. The previous Jesuit bogey was at least one
which haunted churches and colleges, and worked through the
confessional and the pulpit. But this creation of modern fiction
has lost all connection with reality. He (or even she) is a
person, not necessarily a priest, under the command of a black
pope who lives in an imaginary world of back stairs, closets,
and dark passages. He is busy with plotting and scheming,
mesmerizing the weak and corrupting the honest, occupations
diversified by secret crimes or melodramatic attempts at crimes
of every sort. The ideal we see is taken over bodily from the
real, or the supposed method of the life of the Continental
mason. Yet this is the sort of nonsense about which special
correspondents send telegrams to the papers, about which
revolutionary agitators and crafty politicians make long
inflammatory speeches, which standard works of reference discuss
quite gravely, which none of our popular writers dares to expose
as an imposture (see Brou, op cit. infra, II, 199-247).
E. Some Modern Objections
(1) Without having given up the old historical objections (for
the study of which the historical sections of this article may
be consulted), the anti-Jesuits of today arraign a Society as
out of touch with the modern Zeitgeist, as hostile to liberty
and culture, and as being a failure. Liberty, next to
intelligence (and some people put it before), is the noblest of
man's endowments. Its enemies are the enemies of the human race.
Yet it is said that Ignatius' system, by aiming at "blind
obedience", paralyzes the judgment and by consequence scoops out
the will, inserting the will of the superior in its place, as a
watchmaker might replace one mainspring with another (cf. Encyc.
Brit., 1911, XV, 342); perinde ac cadaver, "like a corpse",
again, "similar to an old man's staff" -- therefore dead and
listless, similar to mere machines, incapable of individual
distinction (Bohmer-Monod, op. cit. infra, p. lxxvi).
The cleverness of this objection lies in its bold inversion of
certain plain truths. In reality, no one loved liberty better or
provided for it more carefully than Ignatius. But he upheld the
deeper principle that true freedom lies in obeying reason, all
other choice being license. Those who hold themselves free to
disobey even the laws of God, who declare all rule in the Church
a tyranny, and who aim at so-called free love, free divorce, and
free thought -- they, of course, reject his theory. In practice
his custom was to train the will so thoroughly that his men
might be able after a short time to "level up" others (a most
difficult thing), even though they lived outside the cloisters,
with no external support for their discipline. The wonderful
achievements of staying and rolling back the tide of the
Reformation, in so far as it was due to the Jesuits, was the
result of increased will-power given to previously irresolute
Catholics by the Ignatian methods.
As to "blind" obedience, we should note that all obedience must
be blind to some extent -- "Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but
to do and die." Ignatius borrowed from earlier ascetic writings
the strong metaphors of "the blind man", "the corpse", "the old
man's staff", to illustrate the nature of obedience in a vivid
way; but he does not want those metaphors to be run to death.
Not only does he want the subject to bring both head and heart
to the execution of the command, but knowing human nature and
its foibles, he recognizes that causes will arise when the
superior's order may appear impracticable, unreasonable, or
unrighteous to a free subject and may possibly really be so. In
such cases it is the acknowledged duty of the subject to appeal,
and his judgment as well as his conscience, even when it may
happen to be ill-formed is to be respected; provision is made in
the Constitutions for the clearing up of such troubles by
discussion and arbitration, a provision which would be
inconceivable, unless a mind and a free will, independent of and
possibly opposed to that of the superior, were recognized and
respected. Ignatius expects his subjects to be "dead" or "blind"
only in respect of sloth, of passion, of self-interest and
self-indulgence, which would impede the ready execution of
orders. So far is he from desiring a mechanical performance that
he explicit disparages "obedience, which executes in work only".
as "Unworthy of the name of virtue" and warmly urges that
"bending to, with all forces of head and heart, we should carry
out the commands quickly and completely" (Letter on Obedience,
sect. 5, 14).
Further illustration of the Ignatian love of liberty may be
found in the Spiritual Exercises, and in the character of
certain theological doctrines, as Probabilism and Molinism (with
its subsequent modifications) which are commonly taught in the
Society's schools. Thus, Molinism "is above all determined to
throw a wall of security around free will" (see Grace,
Controversies on) and Probabilism (q.v.) teaches that liberty
may not be restrained unless the restraining force rests on a
basis of certainty.The characteristics of both theories is to
emphasize the sacredness of free will somewhat more than is done
in other systems. The Spiritual Exercises, the secret of
Ignatius's success, are a series of considerations arranged, as
he tells the exercitant from the first, to enable him to make a
choice or election on the highest principals and without fear of
consequences. Again the priest, who explains the meditations, is
warned to be most careful not to incline the exercitant more to
one object of choice than to another (Annot. 15).
It is notoriously impossible to expect that anti-Jesuit writers
of our day should face their subject in a common-sense or
scientific manner. If they did, one would point out that the
only rational manner of inquiring into the subject would be to
approach the persons under discussion (who are after all very
approachable), and to see if they are characterless, as they are
reported to be. Another easy test would be to turn to the lives
of their great missionaries, Brebeuf, Marquette, Silveira, etc.
Any men more unlike "mere machines" it would be impossible to
conceive. The Society's successes in education confirm the same
conclusion. It is true that lately, as a preparatory measure to
closing its schools by violence, the French anti-Jesuits
asserted both in print and in the Chamber that Jesuit education
produces mere pawns, spiritless, unenterprising nonentities. But
the real reason was notoriously that the students of the Jesuit
schools were exceptionally successful at the examinations for
entrance as officers into the army, and proved themselves the
bravest and most vigorous men of the nation. In a controverted
matter like this, the most obvious proof that the Society's
education fits its pupils for the battle of life in found in the
constant readiness of parents to entrust their children to the
Jesuits even when, from a merely worldly point of view, there
seems to be many reasons for holding back. (A discussion of this
matter, from a French standpoint, will be found in Brou, op cit
infra, II, 409; Tampe in "Etudes", Paris, 1900, pp. 77, 749.) It
is hardly necessary to add that methods of school discipline
will naturally differ greatly in different countries. The
Society would certainly prefer to observe, mutatis mutandis, its
well-tried Ratio Studiorum; but it is far from thinking that
local customs (as for instance those with regard to
surveillance) and external discipline should everywhere be
uniform.
(2) Another objection akin to the supposed hostility to freedom
is the supposed Kulturfeindlichkeit, hostility to what is
cultured and intellectual. This cry has been chiefly raised by
those who reject Catholic theology as dogmatism, who scoff at
Catholic philosophy as Scholastic, and at the Church's
insistence on Biblical inspiration as retrograde and
unscholarly. Such men make little account of work for the
ignorant and the poor, whether at home or on the missions, they
speak of evangelical poverty, of practices of penance and of
mortification, as if they were debasing and retrograde. They
compare their numerous and richly endowed universities with the
few and relatively poor seminaries of the Catholic and the
Jesuit, and their advances in a multitude of sciences with the
intellectual timidity (as they think it) of those whose highest
ambition it is not to go beyond the limits of theological
orthodoxy. The Jesuits, they say, are the leaders of the
Kulturfeindliche; their great object is to bolster up antiquated
traditions. They have produce no geniuses, while men whom they
have trained, and who broke loose from their teaching, Pascal,
Descartes, Voltaire, have powerfully affected the philosophical
and religious beliefs of large masses of mankind; but
respectable mediocrity is the brand on the long list of the
Jesuit names in the catalogs of Alegambe and de Backer. Under
Bismarck and M. Waldeck-Rousseau arguments of this sort were
accompanied by decrees of banishment and confiscation of goods.
This objection springs chiefly from prejudice -- religious,
worldly, or national. The Catholic will think rather better than
worse of men who are decried and persecuted on the grounds which
apply to the whole Church. It is true that the modern Jesuit's
school is often smaller and poorer than the establishment of his
rival, who at times is ensconced in the academy which the
Jesuits of previous times succeeded in founding and endowing. It
is not to be questioned that the sum total of learned
institutions in the hands of non-Catholics is greater than that
in the hands of our co-religionists, but the love of culture
surely is not extinguished in the exiled French, German, or
Portuguese Jesuit. robbed perhaps of all he possesses, at once
settles down to his task of study, of writing, or of education.
Very rare are the cases where Jesuits, living among enterprising
people, have acquiesced in educational inferiority. For
superiority to others, even in sacred learning, the Society does
not and should not contend. In their own line, that is in
Catholic theology, philosophy, and exegesis, they would hope
that they are not inferior to the level of their generation, and
that, far from acquiescing in intellectual inferiority, they aim
at making their schools as good as circumstances allow them.
They may also claim to have trained many good scholars in almost
every science.
The objection that Jesuit teachers do not influence masses of
mankind, while men like Descartes and Voltaire, after breaking
with Jesuit education, have done so, derives its force from
passing over the main work of the Jesuits, which is the
salvation of souls, and any lawful means that helps to this end,
as, for instance, the maintenance of orthodoxy. It is easy to
overlook this, and those who object will probably despise it,
even if they recognize it. The work is not showy, whereas that
of the satirist, the iconoclast, and free-lance compels
attention. Avoiding comparisons, it is safe to say that the
Jesuits have done much to maintain the teaching of orthodoxy,
and that the orthodox far outnumber the followers of men like
Voltaire and Descartes.
It would be impossible, from the nature of the case, to devise
any satisfactory test to show what love of culture, especially
intellectual culture, there was in a body so diverse and
scattered as the Society. Many might be applied, and one of the
most telling is the regularity with which every test reveals
refinement and studiousness somewhere in its ranks, even in poor
and distant foreign missions. To some it will seem significant
that the pope, while searching for theologians and consultors
for various Roman colleges and congregations, should so
frequently select Jesuits, a relatively small body, some thirty
or forty percent of whose members are employed in foreign
missions or among the poor of our great towns. The periodicals
edited by the Jesuits, of which a list is given below, afford
another indication of culture, and a favorable one, those it is
to be remembered that these publications are written chiefly
with a view of popularizing knowledge. The more serious and
learned books must be studied separately. The most striking test
of all is that offered by the great Jesuit bibliography of
Father Sommervogel, showing over 120,000 writers, and an almost
endless list of books, pamphlets, and editions. There is no
other body in the world which can point to such a monument.
Cavillers may say that the brand-mark is "respectable
mediocrity"; even so, the value of the whole will be very
remarkable, and we may be sure that less prejudiced and
therefore better judges will form a higher appreciation.
Masterpieces, too, in every field of ecclesiastical learning and
in several secular branches are not rare.
The statement that the Society has produced few geniuses is not
impressive in the mouths of those who have not studied, or
unable to study or to judge, the writers under discussion. Again
the objection, whatever its worth, confuses two ideals.
Educational bodies must necessarily train by classes and schools
and produce men formed on definite lines. Genius on the other
hand is independent of training and does not conform to type. It
is unreasonable to reproach a missionary for educational system
for not possessing advantages which no system can offer. Then it
is well to bear in mind that genius is not restricted to writers
or scholars alone. There is a genius of organization,
exploration, enterprise, diplomacy, evangelization, and
instances of it, in one or other of these directions, are common
enough in the Society.
Men will vary of course in their estimates as to whether the
amount of Jesuit genius is great or not according to the esteem
they make of these studies in which the Society is strongest.
But whether the amount is great or little, it is not stunted by
Ignatius's strivings for uniformity. The objection taken to the
words of the rule, "Let all say the same thing as much as
possible" is not convincing. This is a clipped quotation, for
Ignatius goes on to add, "juxta Apostolum", an evidence
reference to St. Paul to the Phillipians, iii, 15, 16, beyond
whom he does not go. In truth, Ignatius's object is the
practical one of preventing zealous professors from wasting
their lecture time disputing small points on which they may
differ from their colleagues. The Society's writers and teachers
are never compelled to the same rigid acceptance of the views of
another as is often the case elsewhere, e.g., in politics,
diplomacy, or journalism. Members of a staff of leader-writers
have constantly to personate convictions, not really their own
at the bidding of the editor; whereas as Jesuit writers and
teachers write and speak almost invariably in their own names,
and with a variety of treatment and a freedom of mind which
compare not unfavorably with other exponents of the same
subjects.
(3) Failure
The Society never became "relaxed" or needed a "reform" in the
technical sense in which these terms are applied to religious
orders. The constant intercourse which is maintained between all
parts enables the general to find out very soon when anything
goes wrong, and his large powers of appointing new officials has
always sufficed to maintain a high standard of both disciple and
of religious virtue. Of course, there have arisen critics, who
have reversed this generally acknowledged fact. It has been said
that
+ failure has become a note of Jesuit enterprises. Other
religious and learned institutions endure for century after
century. The Society has hardly a house that is a hundred
years old, very few that are not quite modern. Its great
missionary glories, Japan, Paraguay, China, etc., passed like
smoke, and even now, in countries predominantly Catholic, it
is banished and its works ruined, while other Catholics escape
and endure. Again, that
+ after Acquaviva's time, a period of decay ensued;
+ disputes about Probabilism, tyrannicide, equivocation. etc.,
caused a strong and steady decline in the order;
+ the Society after Acquaviva's time began to acquire enormous
wealth and the professed lived in luxury;
+ religious energy was enervated by political scheming and by
internal dissensions.
(a) The word "failure" here is taken in two different ways --
failure from internal decay and failure from external violence.
The former is discreditable, the later may be glorious, if the
cause is good. Whether the failures of the Society, at its
Suppression, and in the violent ejection from various lands even
in our own time were discreditable failures is a historical
question treated elsewhere. If they were, then we must say that
such failures tend to the credit of the order, that they are
apparent rather than real, and that God's Providence will, in
His own way, make good the loss. In effect we see the Society
frequently suffering, but as frequently recovering and renewing
her youth. It would be inexact to say that the persecutions
which the Society has suffered have been so great and continuous
as to be irreconcilable with the usual course of Providence,
which is wont to temper trial with relief, to make endurance
possible (I Cor., x, 13). Thus, while it may be truly said that
many Jesuit communities have been forced to break up within the
last thirty years, others have had a corporate existence of two
or three years. Stonyhurst College, for instance, has only been
116 years at its present site, but its corporate life in 202
years older still; yet the most glorious pages of its history
are those of its persecutions, when it lost, three tomes over,
everything it possessed, and, barely escaping by flight, renewed
a life even more honorable and distinguished than that which
preceded, a fortune probably without its equal in the history of
pedagogy. Again the Bollandists (q.v.) and the Collegio Romano
may be cited as well-known examples of institutions which,
though once smitten to the ground, have afterwards revived and
flourished as much as before, if not more. One might instance,
too, the German province which, though driven into exile by
Bismark, has there more than doubled its previous numbers. The
Christianity which the Jesuits planted in Paraguay survived in a
wonderful way, after they were gone, and the rediscovery of the
Church in Japan affords a glorious testimony to the thoroughness
of the old missionary methods.
(b) Turning to the point of decadence after Acquaviva's time, we
may freely concede that no subsequent generation contained so
many great personalities as the first. The first fifty years say
nearly all the Society's saints and a large proportion of its
great writers and missionaries. But the same phenomenon is to be
observed in almost all orders, indeed in most other human
institutions either sacred or profane. As for internal
dissensions after Acquaviva's death, truth is that the severe
troubles occurred before, not after it. The reason for this is
easily understood. Internal troubles came chiefly with the
conflict of views which was inevitable while the Constitutions,
the rules, and general traditions of the body were being
moulded. This took till near the end of Acquaviva's generalate.
The worst trouble came first, under Ignatius himself in regards
to Portugal, as has been explained elsewhere (see Ignatius
Loyola). The trouble of Acquaviva with Spain come next in
seriousness.
(c) After Acquaviva's time indeed we find some warm theological
disputations on Probabilism and other points; but in truth this
trouble and the debates on tyrannicide and equivocation had much
more to do with outside controversies than with internal
division. After they had been fully argued and resolved by papal
authority, the settlement was accepted throughout the Society
without any trouble.
(d) The allegation that the Jesuits were ever immensely rich is
demonstrably a fable. It would seem to have arisen from the
vulgar prepossession that all those who live in great houses or
churches must be very rich. The allegation was exploited as
early as 1594 by Antoine Arnauld, who declared that the French
Jesuits had a revenue of 200,000 livres (50,000 pounds, which
might be multiplied by six to get the relative buying power of
that day). The Jesuits answered that their twenty-five colleges
and churches have a staff of 500 to 600 persons, had in all only
60,000 livres (15,000 pounds). The exact annual revenues of the
English province for some 120 years are published by Foley
(Records S.J., VII, Introd., 139). Duhr (Jesuitenfabeln, 1904,
606, etc.) gives many figures of the same kind. We can
therefore, tell now that the college revenues were, for their
purposes, very moderate. The rumors of immense wealth acquired
still further vogue through two occurrences, the
Restitutionsedikt of 1629, and the license, sometimes given by
papal authority, for the procurators of the foreign missions to
include in the sale of the produce of their own mission farms
the produce of their native converts, who were generally too
rude and childish to make bargains for themselves. The
Restitutionsedikt, as has been already explained (see above,
Germany), led to no permanent results, but the sale of the
mission produce came conspicuously before the notice of the
public at the time of the Suppression, by the failure of Father
La Valette (see, in article above, Suppression, France). In
neither case did the money transactions, such as they were,
affect the standard of living in the Society itself, which
always remained that of the honesti sacerdotes of their time
(see Duhr, op. cit. infra, pp. 582-652).
During the closing months of 1751 many other prelates wrote to
the king, to the chancellor, M. de Lamoignon, protesting against
the arret of the Parlement, 6 August, 1761, and testifying to
their sense of the injustice of the accusations made against the
Jesuits, and of the loss which their diocese would sustain by
their suppression. De Ravignan gives the name of twenty-seven
such bishops. Of the minority, five out of the six rendered a
collective answer, approving of the conduct and the teaching of
the Jesuits. These five bishops, the Cardinal de Choiseul,
brother of the statesman, Mgr de La Rochefoucald, the Archbishop
of Rouen, and Mgrs Quiseau of Nevers, Choiseul-Beaupre of
Chalons, and Champion de Cice of Auxerre, declared that "the
confidence reposed in the Jesuits by the bishops of the kingdom,
all of whom approve them in their diocese, is evidence that they
are all found useful in France", and that in consequence, they,
the writers, "supplicate the king to grant his royal protection
and keep for the Church of France a Society commendable for the
service it renders to the Church and state and which the
vigilance of the bishops may be trusted to preserve free from
the evils which it is feared might come to affect it". To the
second and third of the king's questions they answer that
occasionally individual Jesuits have taught blameworthy
doctrines or invaded the jurisdiction of the bishops, but that
neither fault has been general enough to affect the body as a
whole. To the fourth question they answer that "the authority of
the general, as is wont to be and should be exercised in France
appears to need no modification; nor do they see anything
objectionable in the Jesuit vows". In fact, the only point on
which they differ from the majority is on the suggestion that
"to take away all difficulties for the future it would be well
to solicit the Holy See to issue a Brief fixing precisely those
limits to the exercise of the general's authority in France
which the maxims of the kingdom require".
Testimonies like these might be multiplied indefinitely. Among
them, one of the most significant is that of Clement XIII, dated
7 January, 1765, which specially mentions the cordial relations
of the Society with bishops throughout the world, precisely when
enemies were plotting for the suppression of the order. In his
books on Clement XIII and Clement XIV, de Ravignan records the
acts and letters of many bishops in favor of the Jesuits,
enumerating the names of nearly 200 bishops in every part of the
world. From a secular source the most noteworthy testimony is
that of the French bishops when hostility to the Society is
rampant in high places. On 15 November, 1761, the Comte de
Florentin, the minister of the royal household, bade Cardinal de
Luynes, the Archbishop of Sens, to convoke the bishops then at
Paris to investigate the following points:
+ The use which the Jesuits can be in France, and the advantages
or evils which might be expected to attend their discharge of
the different functions committed to them.
+ The manner in which in their teaching and practice the Jesuits
conduct themselves in regard to opinions dangerous to the
personal safety of sovereigns, to the doctrine of the French
clergy contained in the Declaration of 1782, and in regard to
the Ultramontane opinions generally.
+ The conduct of the Jesuits in regard to the subordination due
to bishops and ecclesiastical superiors, and as to whether
they do not infringe on the rights and functions of the parish
priests.
+ What restriction can be placed on the authority of the General
of the Jesuits, so far as it is exercised in France.
For eliciting the judgment of the ecclesiastics of the kingdom
on the action of the Parlement, no questions could be more
suitable, and the bishops convoked (three cardinals, nine
archbishops, and thirty-nine bishops, that is, fifty-one in all)
met together to consider them on 30 November. They appointed a
commission consisting of twelve of their number, who were given
a month for their task, and reported duly on 30 December, 1761.
Of these fifty-one bishops, forty-four addressed a letter to the
king, dated 30 December, 1761, answering all the four questions
in a sense favorable to the Society, and giving under each head
a clear statement of their reasons.
To the first question the bishops reply that the "Institute of
the Jesuits . . . is conspicuously consecrated to the good of
religion and the profit of the State". They began by noting how
a succession of popes, St. Charles Borromeo, and the ambassadors
of princes, who with him were present at the Council of Trent,
together with the Fathers of that Council in their collective
capacity, had pronounced in favor of the Society, after an
experience of the services it could render; how, though, in the
first instance, there was a prejudice against it in France, on
account of certain novelties in its constitutions, the
sovereign, bishops, clergy, and people had, on coming to know,
became firmly attached to it, as was witnessed by the demand of
the States-General in 1614 and 1615, and of the Assembly of the
Clergy in 1617, both of which bodies wished for Jesuit colleges
in Paris and the provinces as "the best means adapted to plant
religion and faith in the hearts of the people". They referred
also to the language of many letters-patent by which the kings
of France had authorized various Jesuit colleges, particularly
that of Claremont, at Paris, which Louis XIV had wished should
bear his own name, and which had come to be known as the College
of Louis-le-Grand. Then, coming to their own personal;
experience, they bear witness that "the Jesuits are very useful
for our diocese, for preaching, for the guidance of souls, for
implanting, preserving, and renewing faith and piety, by their
missions, congregations, retreats which they carry on with our
approbation and under our authority". Whence they conclude that
"it would be difficult to replace them without a loss,
especially in the provincial towns, where there is no
university".
To the second question the bishops reply that, if there were any
reality in the accusation that the Jesuit teaching was a menace
to the lives of sovereigns, the bishops would have long since
taken measures to restrain it, instead of trusting the Society
with the most important functions of sacred ministry. they also
indicate the source from which this and similar accusations
against the Society had their origin. "The Calvinists", they
say. "tried in their utmost to destroy in its cradle, a Society
whose principal object was to combat their errors . . . and
disseminated many publications in which they singled out the
Jesuits as professing a doctrine which menaced the lives of
sovereigns, because to accuse them of a crime so capital was the
surest means to destroy them; and the prejudices against them
thus aroused had ever since been seized upon greedily by all who
had any interested motives for objecting to the Society's
existence (in the country)." The bishops add that the charges
against the Jesuits which were being made at that time in so
many writings in which the country was flooded were but rehashes
of what had been spoken and written against them throughout the
preceding century and a half.
To the third question they reply that the Jesuits have no doubt
received numerous privileges from the Holy See. most of which,
however, and those the most extensive, have accrued to them by
communication with the other orders to which they had been
primarily granted; but that the Society had been accustomed to
use its privileges with moderation and prudence.
The fourth and last of the questions is not pertinent here, and
we omit the answer. The Archbishop of Paris, who was one of the
assembled bishops, but on some ground of precedent preferred not
to sign the majority statement, endorsed it in a separate letter
which he addressed to the king.
(e) It is not to be denied that, as the Society acquired
reputation and influence even in the Courts of powerful kings,
certain domestic troubles arose, which had not been heard of
before. Some jealousies were inevitable, and some losses of
friendship; there was danger too of the faults of the court
communicating themselves to those who frequented it. But it is
equally clear that the Society was keenly on its guard in this
matter, and it would seem that its precautions were successful.
Religious observance did not suffer to any appreciable extent.
But few people of the seventeenth century, if any, noticed the
grave dangers that were coming from absolute government, the
decay of energy, the diminished desire for progress. The Society
like the rest of Europe suffered under these influences, but
they were plainly external, not internal. In France, the
injurious influence of Gallicanism must also be admitted (see
above, France). But even in this dull period we find the French
Jesuits in the new mission-field of Canada showing a fervor
worthy of the highest traditions of the order. The final and
most convincing proof that there was nothing seriously wrong in
the poverty or in the discipline of the Society up to the time
of its Suppression is offered by the inability of its enemies to
substantiate their charges when, after the Suppression, all the
accounts and the papers of the Society passed bodily into the
adversaries' possession. What an unrivaled opportunity for
proving to the world those allegations which with hitherto
unsupported! Yet, after a careful scrutiny of the papers, no
such attempt was made. No serious faults could be proved.
Neither at the middle of the eighteenth century nor at any
previous time was there any internal decline of the Society;
there was no loss of numbers, but on the contrary a steady
growth; there was no falling off of learning, morality, zeal.
From 1000 members in 12 provinces in 1656, it had grown to
13,112 in 27 provinces in 1615; to 17,665 in 1680, 7890 of whom
were priests, in 35 provinces with 48 novitiates, 28 professed
houses, 88 seminaries, 578 colleges, 160 residences and 106
foreign missions; and in spite of every obstacle, persecution,
expulsion, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in
1749 it numbered 22,589 members, of whom 11,293 were priests, in
41 provinces, with 61 novitiates, 24 professed houses, 176
seminaries, 669 colleges, 335 residences, 1542 churches, and 273
foreign missions, That there was no falling off in learning,
morality, or zeal historians generally, whether hostile or
friendly to the Society, attest (see Maynard, "The Jesuits,
their Studies and their Teaching").
On this point the testimony of Benedict XIV will surely be
accepted as incontrovertible. In a letter dated 24 April, 1748,
he says that the Society is one "whose religious are everywhere
reputed to be in the good odour of Christ, chiefly because, in
order to advance the young men who frequent their churches and
schools in pursuit of liberal knowledge, leaning, and culture,
as well as in deeds and habits of the Christian religion and
piety, they zealously exert every effort greatly to the
advantage of the young".
In another bearing the same date he says:
It is a universal conviction confirmed by pontifical declaration
[Urban VIII, 6 August, 1623] that as the Almighty God raised up
other holy men at other times, so he has raised up St. Ignatius and
the Society established by him to oppose Luther and the heretics of
his day; and the religious sons of this Society, following the
luminous way of so great a parent, continue to give an unfailing
example of the religious virtues and a distinguished proficiency in
every kind of learning, more especially in sacred, so that, as their
cooperation is a great service in the successful conduct of the most
important affairs of the Catholic Church, in the restoration of
morality, and in the liberal culture of young men, they merit new
proofs of Apostolic favour.
In the paragraph following he speaks of the Society as "most
deserving of the orthodox religion". and further on he says: "It
abounds in men skilled in every branch of learning." On 27
September, 1748, he commended the General of the Society and its
members for their strenuous and faithful labours in sowing and
propagating throughout the whole world Catholic faith and unity,
as well as Catholic doctrine and piety, in all their integrity
and sanctity". On 15 July, 1749, he speaks of the members of the
Society as "men who by their assiduous labour strive to instruct
and form all the faithful of both sexes in every virtue, and in
zeal for Christian piety and doctrine". "The Society of Jesus",
he wrote on 29 March, 1753, "adhering closely to the splendid
lessons and examples set them by their founder, St. Ignatius,
devote themselves top this pious work [spiritual exercises] with
so much ardor, zeal, charity, attention, vigilance, labour . .
.", etc.
For the early controversies see the articles Annat, Cerrutti,
Forer, Gretzer. Grou, and Reiffenberg in Sommervogel, and the
full list of Jesuit apologies, ibid., X, 1501. Bohmer-Monod, Les
jesuites (Paris, 1910); Gioberti, Il Gesuita moderno (Lausanne,
1840); Griesinger, Hist. of the Jesuits (London, 1872);
Hoenbroech, Vierzehn Jahre Jesuit (Leipzig, 1910); Huber, Der
Jesuiten-Orden (Berlin, 1873); Michelet-Quintet, des jesuites
(Paris, 1843); Muller, Les origines de la comp. de Jesus (Paris,
1898); Reusch, Beitrage fur Gesch. der jesuiten (Munich, 1894);
taunton, Hist. of the Jesuits in England (London, 1901);
Theiner, Hist. des institutions chret d'education eccles. (Fr.
tr., Cohan, Paris, 1840). Discussions of the above and other
hostile writers will be found in the Jesuit periodicals cited
above; see also Pilatus (Viktor Naumann), Der Jesuitismus
(Ratisbon, 1905), 352-569, a fine criticism, by a Protestant
writer, of anti-Jesuitical literature; Briere, L'apologitique de
Pascal et la mort de Pascal (Paris, 1911), Brou, Les jesuites de
la legende (Paris, 1906); Concerning Jesuits (London, 1902);
Duhr, Jesuiten-Fabeln (Freiburg, 1904); Du Lac, Jesuites (Paris,
1901); Maynard, The Studies and Teachings of the Society of
Jesus (London, 1855); Les Provinciales et leur refutation
(Paris, 1851-2); De Ravignan, De l'existence et de l'institut
des jesuites (Paris, 1844), tr. Seager (London 1844); Weiss,
Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza (Freiburg, 1911); Reusch, Der Index
der verboten Bucher; Dolinger and Reusch, Gesch, des
Moralstreitigkeiten; Darrel, A Vindication of St. Ignatius from
Phanaticism, and of the Jesuites from the Calumnies laid at
their charge (London, 1688); Hughes, Loyola and the Educat.
System of the Jesuits (New York, 1892); Pachtler-Duhr, Ratio
Studiorum in Mon. Germ. paedagogica (Berline, 1887); Swickerath,
Jesuit Education, Its History and Principles in the Light of
Modern Educational Problems (St. Louis, 1905).
J.H. POLLEN
Distinguished Jesuits
Distinguished Jesuits
Saints:
+ Ignatius Loyola;
+ Francis Xavier;
+ Francis Borgia;
+ Stanislaus Kostka;
+ Alfonso Rodriguez;
+ Juan de Castillo;
+ John Berchmans;
+ John Francis Regis;
+ Peter Claver;
+ Francis de Geronimo;
+ Paul Miki, John Goto, James Kisai, Japanese martyrs (1597)
+ Peter Canisius;
+ North American Martyrs: Isaac Jogues, Anthony Daniel, John de
Brebeuf, Gabriel Lalemant, Charles Garnier, Noel Chabanel
(priests), and Rene Goupil and John Lalande (lay
missionaries);
+ Robert Bellarmine,
+ Andrew Bobola;
+ John de Britto;
+ Claude de La Colombiere (1641-82), Apostle of the devotion to
the Sacred Heart;
Blessed
Among the blessed are:
+ Peter Faber;
+ Anthony Baldinucci;
+ Bernardo Realini;
+ The Forty Martyrs of Brazil:
o Priests
# Ignatius de Azevedo (q.v.)
# Didacus de Andrada;
o Scholastics:
# Antonio Suarez;
# Benedictus a Castro;
# Francisco Magalhaes;
# Joao Fernandes;
# Luiz Correa;
# Manoel Rodrigues;
# Simon Lopez;
# Manoel Fernandes;
# Alvaro Mendes;
# Pedro Nunhes;
# Andreas Goncalves;
# Juan a S. Martino;
o Novices:
# Gonzalvo Henriques;
# Didaco Pires;
# Ferdinand Sancies;
# Francisco Perez Godoi;
# Antonio Correa;
# Manoel Pacheco;
# Nicholas Diniz;
# Alexius Delgado;
# Marco Caldeira;
# Sanjoannes;
o Lay brothers:
# Manoel Alvares;
# Francisco Alvares;
# Domingos Fernandez;
# Gaspar Alvares;
# Amarus Vaz;
# Juan de Majorga;
# Alfonso de Vaena;
# Antonio Fernandes;
# Stefano Zuriare;
# Pedro Fontoura;
# Gregorio Scrivano;
# Juan de Zafra;
# Juan de Baeza;
# Blasio Ribeiro;
# Joao Fernandez;
# Simon Acosta;
+ the Japanese martyrs:
o Priests:
# John Baptist Machado, 1617;
# Sebatian Chimura, 1622;
# Camillo Costanzo, 1622;
# Paul Navarro, 1622;
# Jerome de Angelis, 1623;
# Didacus Carvalho, 1624;
# Michael Carvalho, 1624;
# Francisco Pacheco and his companions Baltasar de
Torres and Giovanni Battista Zola, 1626;
# Thomas Tzugi. 1627;
# Anthony Ixida, 1632;
o Scholastics:
# Augustine Ota, 1622;
# Gonzalvus Fusai and his companions, Anthony Chiuni,
Peter Sampo, Michael Xumpo Louis Cavara, John
Chingocu, Thomas Acafoxi, 1622;
# Denis Fugixima and Peter Onizuchi (companions of Bl.
Paul Navarro), 1622;
# Simon Jempo (companion of Bl. Jerome de Angelis),
1623;
# Vincent Caun and his companions;
# Peter Rinxei, Paul Chinsuche, John Chinsaco; Michael
Tozo 1626;
# Michael Nacaxima, 1628;
o Lay brothers:
# Leonard Chimura, 1619;
# Ambrosio Fernandes, 1620;
# Gaspar Sandamatzu (companion of Bl. Francis Pacheco,
1626);
+ the English martyrs:
o Thomas Woodhouse, 1573;
o John Nelson,
o Edmund Campion,
o Alexander Briant;
o Thomas Cottam, 1582;
+ the martyrs of Cuncolim (q.v.):
o Priests:
# Rudolph Acquaviva;
# Alfonso Pacheco;
# Pietro Berno;
# Antonio Francisco;
o Lay brother:
# Francisco Aranha, 1583;
+ the Hungarian martyrs:
o Melchior Grodecz and Stephen Pongracz, 7 September, 1619.
Venerables
The venerable include, besides those whose biographies have been
given separately (see the Index), Nicholas Lancicus (1574-1653),
author of "Gloria Ignatiana" and many spiritual works, and with
Orlandini, of "Historia Societatis Jesu"; Julien Maunoir
(1606-83), Apostle of Brittany.
Cardinals
Though the Jesuits, in accordance with their rules, do not
accept ecclesiastical dignities, the popes at times have raised
some of their number to the rank of cardinal, as Cardinals
Bellarmine, Franzelin, de Lugo, Mai, Mazzella, Odescalchi,
Pallaviocino, Pazmany, Tarquini, Toledo, Tolomei, (qq.v.); also
Cardinals Casimir V, King of Poland, created 1647; Alvaro
Cienfuegos (1657-1739), created 1720; Johann Eberhardt Nidhard
(1607-81), created 1675; Giambattista Salerno (1670-1729),
created 1709; Andreas Steinhuber (1825-1907), created 1893; and
Louis Billot (b. 1846) created 27 November, 1911.
As reference is made in most of the articles on members of the
Society to Sommervogel's monumental "Bibliotheque de la
Compagnie de Jesus" a brief account of its author is given here.
Carlos, fourth son of Marie-Maximillian-Joseph Sommervogel and
Hortense Blanchard, was born on 8 Jan, 1834, at Strasburg,
Alsace, and died in Paris on 4 March, 1902. After studying at
the lycee of Strasburg, Carlos entered the Jesuit novitiate at
Issenheim, Alsace, 2 Feb., 1853, and was sent later to
Saint-Acheul, Amiens, to complete his literary studies. In 1856,
he was appointed assistant prefect of discipline and
sub-librarian in the College of the Immaculate Conception, Rue
Vaugirard, Paris. Here he discovered his literary vocation. The
"Bibliotheque" of PP. Augustin and Aloys de Backer was then in
course of publication, and Sommervogel, noting its occasional
errors and omissions, made a systematic examination of the whole
work. Four years later, P. Aug. de Backer, seeing his list of
addenda and errata, a manuscript of 800 pages, containing over
10,000 entries, obtained leave to make use of it. Sommervogel
continued at Rue Vaugirard till 1865, reviewing his course of
philosophy meanwhile. He then studied theology at Amiens, where
he was ordained in Sept., 1866. From 1867 till 1879 he was one
of the staff on the "Etudes", being managing editor from 1871
till 1879. During the Franco-German war he served as chaplain in
Faidhebe's army, and was decorated in 1871 with a bronze medal
for his self-sacrifice.
P. de Backer in the revised edition of his "Bibliotheque"
(1869-76) gave Sommervogel's name as co-author, and deservedly,
for the vast improvement in the work was in no small measure due
to the latter's contributions. From 1880 to 1882 P. Sommervogel
was assistant to his father-provincial. Before 1882 he had never
had any special opportunity of pursuing his favourite study; all
his bibliographical work had been done in his spare moments. In
1884 he published his "Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et
psuedonymes publies par des religieux de la Compagnie de Jesus".
In 1885 he was appointed successor to the PP. de Backer and went
to Louvain. He determined to recast and enlarge their work and
after five years issued the first volume of the first part
(Brussels and Paris, 1890); by 1900 the ninth volume had
appeared; the tenth, an index of the first nine, which comprised
the bibliographic part of the "Bibliotheque" was unfinished at
the time of his death but has since been completed by P.
Brucker, from which these details have been drawn. P.
Sommervogel had intended to compile a second, or historical part
of his work, which was to be a revision of Carayon's
"Bibliographic historique". He was a man of exemplary virtue,
giving freely to all the fruit of his devoted labours, and
content to live for years a busy obscure life to which duty
called him, until his superiors directed him to devote himself
to his favorite study during the last fifteen years of his life.
He re-edited a number of works by old writers of the Society
and, in addition to his articles in the "Etudes", wrote "Table
methodique des Memoires de Trevoux" (3 vols. Paris, 1885);
Moniteur bibliographique de la Comp. de Jesus" (Paris,
1894-1901).
Menologies, Biographies.--Alegambe, Mortes illustres et gesta
eorum de Soc. Jesu qui in odium fidei necati sunt (Rome, 1657);
Idem, Heroes et victims charitatis (Rome, 1658); Drews, Fasti
Soc. Jesu (Braunsberg, 1728); Chandlery, Fasti Breviores Soc.
Jesu (London, 1910); Guilhermy, Menologe de la comp de J.:
Portugal (Paris, 1867); France (Paris, 1892); Italie (Paris,
1893); Germanie (Paris, 1898); Macleod, Menol. for the English
assistancy (London); Boero, Menologio (Rome, 1859); Stoger,
Historiographie Soc. Jesu (Ratisbon, 1851); Nieremberg, Claros
varones de la comp. de J. (Madrid, 1643); Patrignani, Menol.
d'alcuni religiosi della comp. di G. (Venice, 1730); Tanner, Soc
Jesu apostolorum imitatrix (Prague, 1694); Idem, Soc. Jesu usque
ad mortem militans (Prague, 1675); Thoelen, Menol der deutschen
Ordensprovinz (Roermond, 1901). Bibliographies of particular
persons on a larger scale than can be given here, will be found
under the separate articles devoted to them. (See also Index
volume.) The best-arranged historical bibliography is that of
Carayon, Bibliographie de la compagnie de Jesus (Paris, 1864).
See also Southwell, Bibl. scriptorum Soc. Jesu (Rome, 1676); De
Backer, Bibliotheque des escriv, de la comp. de Jesus (Liege,
1853); Sommervogel, Bibl des escriv. de la comp. de Jesus (10
vols., Brussels, 1890-1910); Hunter, Nomenclator literarius
(Innsbruck, 1892-9); Hamy, Iconography de la comp de Jesus
(Paris, 1875); Idem, Galerie illustree de la comp. de J. (8
vols., Paris, 1893). De Uriarte, Catal. rasonado de obras . . .
de auctores de la comp. de Jesus (Madrid, 1904).
Jesuit Periodicals.--Memoires de Treveuz (Treveuz and Paris,
1701-67, 265 vols.), Table methodique, by Sommervogel (3 vols.,
Paris, 1864-65); Civilta cattolica (Rome, 1850); Etudes hist.,
lit., et relig. (Paris 1854); began as Etudes de theol.,
intermittent, 1880-8; Table generale, 1888-1900 (Paris, 1901);
Precis historiques (Brussels, 1852), Tables, 1862-72 (Brussels,
1894), in 1899 it became Missions belges: The Month (London,
1864), Index (1864-1908); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg,
1871), began as Die Encyclika (1864). In connection with this is
issued a series of Erganzungshefte. Also Register I, 1871-86;
Register II, 1886-99; Studien (Utrecht, 1868); Rev des questions
historiques (Brussels, 1877); Przeglad powszechny (General
review, Cracow); Zeitsch. fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1876);
Razon y Fe (Madrid, 1901). Besides the above, which deal with
topics of all sorts, there are a host of minor periodicals
devoted to special subjects; scientific, liturgical, social,
college, mission and parochial magazines are more numerous
still. The Messenger for the Sacred Heart has editions for many
countries and in numerous languages. It is the organ of the
Apostleship of Prayer; most of these editions are edited by
members of the Society; America (New York, 1909). See also
Bollandists; Ratio Studiorum; Retreats; Spiritual Exercises of
Saint Ignatius; Theatre.)
J.H. POLLEN
The Society of the Blessed Sacrament
The Society of the Blessed Sacrament
A congregation of priests founded by Venerable Pierre-Julien
Eymard in Paris, 1 June, 1856. His aim was to create a society
whose members should devote themselves exclusively to the
worship of the Holy Eucharist. Pius IX approved the society by
Briefs of 1856 and 1858 and by a Decree of 3 June, 1863,
approved the rule ad decennium. On 8 May, 1895, Leo XIII
approved it in perpetuum. The first to join the founder was Pere
de Cuers, whose example was soon followed by Pere Champion. The
community prospered, and in 1862 Pere Eymard opened a novitiate,
which was to consist of priests and lay brothers. The former
recite the Divine Office in choir and perform all the other
duties of the clergy; the latter share in the principal end of
the society -- perpetual adoration, and attend to the various
household employments peculiar to their state. The Blessed
Sacrament is always exposed for adoration, and the sanctuary
never without adorers in surplice, and if a priest, the stole.
Every hour at the sound of the signal bell, all the religious
kneel and recite a prayer in honour of the Blessed Sacrament and
of Our Lady. Since 1856, the following houses have been
established:
+ France -- Paris (1856), Marseilles (1859), Angers, (1861),
Saint Maurice (1866), Trevoux (1895), Sarcelles (1898);
Belgium-Brussels (1866), Ormeignies (1898), Oostduinkerke
(1902), Bassenge (1902), Baronville (1910), Baelen Post Eupen
on the Belgian frontier for Germans (1909);
+ Italy -- Rome (1882), Turin (1901), Castel-Vecchio (1905);
+ Austria -- Botzen (1896);
+ Holland -- Baarle-Nassau, now Nijmegen (1902);
+ Spain -- Tolosa (1907);
+ Argentina -- Buenos-Ayres (1903);
+ Chile -- Santiago (1908);
+ Canada -- Montreal (1890), Terrebonne (1902);
+ United States -- New York (1900); Suffern, N. Y. (1907).
All the houses in France were closed by the Government in 1900
but Perpetual Adoration is still held in their chapel in Paris,
which is in charge of the secular clergy, by the members of "The
People's Eucharistic League". The first foundation in the United
States took place in 1900, under the leadership of Pere
Estevenon, the present superior-general, in New York City, where
the Fathers were received in the Canadian parish of
Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 185 East 76th Street. A new church is under
construction. In September, 1904, the Fathers of the Blessed
Sacrament opened a preparatory seminary at Suffern, Rockland
Co., N. Y. Here young boys who give evidence of a vocation are
trained to the religious life, while pursuing a course of
secular study. From the seminary the youths pass to the
novitiate, where, after two years, they make the three vows of
religion, and then enter upon their first theological course
preparatory to ordination.
From every house of the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament
emanates a series of Eucharistic works, all instituted by their
founder. They are: "The Eucharistic Weeks, or, Lights and
Flowers", a society whose members devote themselves to the
proper adornment of the altar; "The People's Eucharistic
League", which numbers over 500,000; "The Priests' Eucharistic
League", with a membership of 100,000; "The Priests' Communion
League" an association of priests under the title of "Sacerdotal
Eucharistic League", established at Rome in the church of San
Claudio, July, 1906, and at once raised by Pius X to the dignity
of an archconfraternity. Its object is to spread the practice of
frequent and daily Communion, in conformity with the Decree of
the Sacred Congregation of the Council, "De quotidiana SS.
Eucharistiae sumptione" (20 December, 1905). The means there
highly recommended refer to the following points: (1) To
instruct, refute objections, spread writings favouring daily
Communion; (2) To encourage assistance at Holy Mass; (3) To
promote Eucharistic triduums; (4) To induce children especially
to approach the Holy Table frequently. "The Society of Nocturnal
Adoration", the members of which for an entire night keep watch
before the Host, reciting the Office of the Blessed Sacrament,
and offering various acts of reparative homage; The apostolate
of the press is a prominent feature in the labours of these
religious. In the United States, they publish "Emmanuel", the
organ of "The Priests' Eucharistic League", and "The Sentinel of
the Blessed Sacrament".
For bibliography see EYMARD, PIERRE-JULEN, VENERABLE.
A. LETELLIER
The Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
The Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
An institution of religious women, taking perpetual vows and
devoted to the work of education, founded 21 November, 1800, by
Madeleine-Sophie Barat (q.v.). One of the signs of returning
vigour in the Church in France after 1792 was the revival of the
religious life. Religious orders had been suppressed by the laws
of 18 August, 1792, but within a few years a reaction set in;
the restoration of some orders and the foundations of new
congregations ushered in "the second spring". One of the first
was the Society of Jesus. Under the provisional title of
"Fathers of the Sacred Heart" and "Fathers of the Faith", some
devoted priests banded themselves together and in due time
returned from their exile or emigration to devote themselves to
the spiritual welfare of their country. Father Leonor De
Tournely was among the founders of the Fathers of the Sacred
Heart, and the first to whom it occurred that an institute of
women bearing the same name and devoting themselves to the
education of girls, would be one of the most efficacious means
of restoring the practice of religion in France. Though many
difficulties intervened, two attempts were made. Princess Louise
de Bourbon Conde before the Revolution a Benedictine abbess, and
the Archduchess Mary Anne of Austria both tried to form an
institute according to his idea; but neither succeeded, and he
died before anything could be accomplished. He had confided his
views to Father Varin who succeeded him as superior of the
Fathers of the Sacred Heart. A short time afterwards Father
Varin found in Madeleine-Sophie Barat, sister of Father Louis
Barat, the instrument to execute his plans. The first members of
the new society began their community life in Paris, under the
guidance of Father Varin. The first convent was opened at Amiens
in 1801, under Mademoiselle Loquet. A school which had already
existed there was made over to the new institute, and some who
had worked in it offered themselves as postulants for the "Dames
de la Foi" or "De L'Instruction Chretienne", the name which the
new society had assumed, as that of the "Society of the Sacred
Heart", might be supposed to indicate a connection with the
royalist party of La Vendee. As Mlle. Loquet, who had been
acting as superior, lacked the requisite qualities, by the
advice of Father Varin and with the assent of the community
Sophie Barat was named superior. By education and temperament,
the new superior was especially fitted for the work of
foundation. In 1804 a second house was opened and a new member,
Phillippine Duchesne, received, who was destined to carry the
work of the society beyond the limits of France. Formerly a
novice of the Visitation convent at Ste. Marie d'en Haut, near
Grenoble, Mlle. Duchesne found it impossible to reconstruct the
religious life of the Visitation in the convent which she
purchased after the Revolution. Father Varin made her
acquaintance and reported to Mother Barat that the house was
offered to her, and that she could find there some who wished to
join her.
The first plan of the institute was drawn up by Father Roger and
Varin, and with a memorial composed by Mothers Barat and
Duchesne was presented to the Bishop of Grenoble and approved by
him. This plan and memorial set forth the end of the
association, which was the perfection of its members and the
salvation of souls; the spirit aimed at detachment from the
world, purity of intention for the glory of the Sacred Heart,
gentleness, zeal, and obedience; the means, for the religious,
the training of the novitiate, and spiritual exercises, for
others, boarding schools for the upper classes, free schools for
the poor, and spiritual retreats. The rule in this preliminary
stage was simple; the houses were to be under one
superior-general, everything was to be in common, the office of
the Blessed Virgin was to be recited, the time appointed for
mental prayer was specified. The manner of life was to be simple
without the prescribed austerities of the older orders, which
would be incompatible with the work of education. On mother
Barat's return to Amiens in 1806 the first general congregation
was assembled for the election of the superior-general, and she
was chosen for the office. Father Varin then withdrew form the
position he had held as superior of the new institute which was
now regularly constituted, but he continued for years to help
the young superior-general with his advice and support. The
first serious trouble which arose nearly wrecked the whole
undertaking. At the end of 1809 the "Dames de la Foi" had six
houses; Amiens, Grenoble, Poitiers, Niort, Ghent, and Cuigniers.
The first house at Amiens was governed at this time by Mother
Baudemont, who fell under the influence of a priest of the
Diocese of Amiens, Abbe de St-Esteve, who took that house under
his control and even drew up a set of rules drawn from those of
the monastic orders and entirely foreign to the spirit of Father
Varin and the foundress. The devotion to the Sacred Heart which
was to be its very life scarcely appeared in the new rules and
they were in consequence not acceptable to any of the houses
outside Amiens. Abbe de St-Esteve was determined to force the
matter. He went to Rome and from thence sent orders, ostensibly
from the Holy See. The name of the Society of the Sacred Heart
was to be abandoned for that of "Apostolines", and he wrote
vehement letters condemning Father Varin and the
superior-general and her work. The most important letter in the
case proved to be a forgery. The institute recovered its
balance, but the house at Ghent had been already lost to the
society.
The second general congregation (1815) examined the constitution
which had been elaborated by Father Varin and Mother Barat (they
were an expansion of the first plan presented to the Bishop of
Grenoble) and they were accepted by all the houses of the
society. It was decided to have a general novitiate in Paris.
The third general congregation (1820) drew up the first uniform
plan of studies which had been developed and modified from time
to time to bring it into harmony with present needs, without
losing the features which have characterized it from the
beginning. In 1826 the society obtained the formal approbation
of Leo XII and the first cardinal protector was appointed, in
place of an ecclesiastical superior whose authority would have
depended too much upon local conditions. The sixth general
congregation was anxious to bring the constitutions into close
comformity with those of the Society of Jesus. Mother Barat
foresaw that the proposed changed were unsuitable for a
congregation of women, but permitted an experimental trial of
them for three years. Finally the whole affair was submitted to
Gregory XVI, who decided that the society should return in all
points to the constitution approved by Leo XII. The last changes
in the constitutions were made in 1851 with the sanction of the
Holy See. Superiors-vicar were named to help the
superior-general in the government of the society by taking the
immediate supervision of a certain number of houses forming a
vicariate. The superior-vicar assembled with the mother general
and the assistants general, form the general congregation of the
society. In 1818 Mother Philippine Duchesne introduced the
society into the United States and the first houses were founded
in Missouri and Louisiana. The society under the guidance of
Mother Mary Aloysia Hardey(q.v) spread rapidly, and in 1910
counted twenty-seven houses and more than eleven hundred
members. The extension in Europe was confined to France until
1827 when a school was opened at the Trinit`a dei Monti, Rome.
Houses were founded in Belgium (Jette), 1836; England
(Berrymead, now Roehampton) and Ireland (Roscrea), both in 1841;
Canada (Montreal), 1842; Austria (Lemberg), 1843; Spain (Sarria,
near Barcelona), 1846. Mother du Rousier was the pioneer in
South America (Santiago de Chile in 1854). Other foundations
were made in the West Indies (1858); New Zealand (1880);
Australia (1882); Egypt (1903); Japan (1908). The Revolution of
1830 disturbed the house in Paris but did not destroy it; the
novitiate was removed elsewhere. In 1848 the house in
Switzerland had to be abandoned; the religious were expelled
from Genoa, Turim, Saluzzo, and Pignerol while the houses in
Rome were searched and pillaged. In 1860 Loreto, St. Elpidio,
and Perugia were suppressed. The German houses were closed by
the May Laws of 1873. Between 1903 and 1909 forty-seven houses
in France were closed and many of them confiscated by the French
government. The mother-house was transferred to Brussels in
1909. This wholesale destruction increased the extension in
foreign countries; for almost every house that has been closed
another has been opened elsewhere. At present the society counts
139 houses and about 6500 religious.
The society aims at a twofold spirit--contemplative and active.
It is composed of choir religious and lay sisters. enclosure is
observed in a manner adapted to the works; the Office of the
Blessed Virgin is recited in choir. The choice of subjects is
guided by the qualifications laid down in the constitutions. In
addition to the indication of a true religious vocation there is
required respectable parentage, unblemished reputation, a good
or at least sufficient education with some aptitude for
completing it, a sound judgment, and above all a generous
determination to make an entire surrender of self to the service
of God through the hands of superiors. The candidate is not
allowed to make any conditions as to place residence or
employment, but must be ready to be sent by obedience to any
part of the world, even the privilege of going on foreing
missions is not definitely promised in the beginning to those
who aspire to it. Postulants are admitted to a preliminary
probation of three months, at the end of which they may take the
religious habit and begin their novitiate of two years, which
are spent in studying the spirit and the rules of the society,
exercising themselves in its manner of living, and in the
virtues which they will be called upon to practice; the second
year is devoted to a course of study which is to prepare them
for their educational work. To each novitiate there is attached
a teaching and training department where the first course of
studies may be taken, and when it is possible the young
religious pass a year in this, after their vows, before they are
sent to teach in the schools. The first vows, simple perpetual
vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, are taken at the end of
two years of noviceship, after which follow five years spend in
study, teaching, or other duties. At the end of this period
follows for those who have special aptitude for the work of
teaching, another short course of study, and for all a period of
second novitiate or probation lasting six months, at the end of
which, that is to say, seven years after their admission to the
society, the aspirants take their final vows and are received as
professed religious. The vow of stability, that is, of
perseverance in the society, is then added, and for the choir
religious a vow to consecrate themselves to education of youth;
provision is made, however, that this vow may be accomplished
even if obedience should prescribe other duties than those of
direct teaching, and may be fulfilled by concurrence in any way
in the work of the society. The vow of stability binds the
society to the professed until death, as well as the professed
to the society; this bond can only be broken by the Holy See.
The society is governed by a superior general, elected for life
by the assistants general and superiors vicar. The assistants
general are elected for six years, the superiors vicar and local
superiors are nominated by the mother general, and may be
changed at her discretion; their usual period of government is
three years, but it may be prologed or shortened according to
circumstances. The superior general assembles the superiors
vicar in a general congregation every six years, and with the
help of the assistants general transacts with them all business
connected with the general government of the society. These
periodical assemblies, the occasional visits of the superior
general to the houses in different countries, the regular
reports and accounts sent in from every vicariate, the free
access of all to the mother general by writing, and in
particular the organization of the house of last probation,
which as far as possible brings the young religious for six
months into touch with the first superiors of the society--all
tend to unity. Its union is what is most valued, and if it had
been possible to define it sufficiently it is said that a fourth
vow of charity would have been added to the obligations of the
members.
Four principal works give scope to the activities of the
society.
+ Education of the upper classes in the boarding schools and of
late years in day schools. Originally the plan of studies was
more or less uniform in all the houses, but it has become
necessary to modify it according to the needs and educational
ideals of different countries and the kind of life for which
the pupils have to be prepared. The character of the education
of the Sacred Heart, however, remains the same, based on the
study of religious and of Christian philosophy and laying
particular stress on history, literature, essay-writting,
modern languages, and such knowledge of household management
as can be taught at school.
+ Free or parochial schools. In some countries, as in England,
these are aided by the State, and follow the regulations laid
down for other public elementary school; in others they are
voluntary and adapt their teaching to the needs and
circumstances of the children. Between these two classes of
schools have arisen in England secondary schools, aided by the
State, which are principally feeding schools for the two
training colleges in London and Newcastle, where Catholic
teachers are prepared for the certificates entitling them to
teach in elementary state-supported schools. This work is of
wider importance than the teaching of single elementary
schools, and is valued as a means of reaching indirectly a far
greater number of children than those with whom the religious
themselves can come into contact. It likewise leavens the
teaching profession with minds trained in Catholic doctrine
and practice. This work for Catholic teachers also exists at
Lima in a flourishing condition.
+ A work which is taking rapid development is that of spiritual
retreats for all classes of persons. The spiritual exercises
are given to considerable numbers of ladies who spend a few
days within the convents of the Sacred Heart; in other cases
the exercises are adapted for poor girls and peasant women.
Retreats for First Communion in Rome, and retreats for Indian
women in Mexico are special varieties of this work.
+ The congregations of Children of Mary loving in the world
which have their own rules and organizations (see Children of
Mary of the Sacred Heart, The).
JANET STUART
Socinianism
Socinianism
The body of doctrine held by one of the numerous Antitrinitarian
sects to which the Reformation gave birth. The Socinians derive
their name from two natives of Siena, Lelio Sozzini (1525-62)
and his nephew Fausto Sozinni (1539-1604). The surname is
variously given, but its Latin form, Socinus, is that currently
used. It is to Fausto, or Faustus Socinus, that the sect owes
its individuality, but it arose before he came into contact with
it. In 1546 a secret society held meetings at Vicenza in the
Diocese of Venice to discuss, among other points, the doctrine
of the Trinity. Among the members of this society were
Blandrata, a well-known physician, Alciatus, Gentilis, and
Lelio, or Laelius Socinus. The last-named, a priest of Siena,
was the intimate friend of Bullinger, Calvin, and Melanchthon.
The object of the society was the advocacy not precisely of what
were afterwards known as Socinian principles, but of
Antitrinitarianism. The Nominalists, represented by Abelard,
were the real progenitors of the Antitrinitarians of the
Reformation period, but while many of the Nominalists ultimately
became Tritheists, the term Antitrinitarian means expressly one
who denies the distinction of persons in the Godhead. The
Antitrinitarians are thus the later representatives of the
Sabellians, Macedonians, and Arians of an earlier period. The
secret society which met at Vicenza was broken up, and most of
its members fled to Poland. Laelius, indeed, seems to have lived
most at Zurich, but he was the mainspring of the society, which
continued to hold meetings at Cracow for the discussion of
religious questions. He died in 1562 and a stormy period began
for the members of the party.
The inevitable effect of the principles of the Reformation was
soon felt, and schism made its appearance in the ranks of the
Antitrinitarians--for so we must call them all indiscriminately
at this time. In 1570 the Socinians separated, and, through the
influence of the Antitrinitarian John Sigismund, established
themselves at Racow. Meanwhile, Faustus Socinus had obtained
possession of his uncle's papers and in 1579 came to Poland. He
found the various bodies of the sect divided, and he was at
first refused admission because he refused to submit to a second
baptism. In 1574 the Socinians had issued a "Catechism of the
Unitarians", in which, while much was said about the nature and
perfection of the Godhead, silence was observed regarding those
Divine attributes which are mysterious. Christ was the Promised
Man; He was the Mediator of Creation, i. e., of Regeneration. It
was shortly after the appearance of this catechism that Faustus
arrived on the scene and, in spite of initial opposition, he
succeeded in attaching all parties to himself and thus securing
for them a degree of unity which they had not hitherto enjoyed.
Once in possession of power, his action was high-handed. He had
been invited to Siebenburg in order to counteract the influence
of the Antitrinitarian bishop Francis David (1510-79). David,
having refused to accept the peculiarly Socinian tenet that
Christ, though not God, was to be adored, was thrown into
prison, where he died. Budnaeus, who adhered to David's views,
was degraded and excommunicated in 1584. The old catechism was
not suppressed and a new one published under the title of the
"Catechism of Racow". Though drawn up by Socinus, it was not
published until 1605, a year after his death; it first appeared
in Polish, then in Latin in 1609.
Meanwhile the Socinians had flourished; they had established
colleges, they held synods, and they had a printing press whence
they issued an immense amount of religious literature in support
of their views; this was collected, under the title "Bibliotheca
Antitrinitarianorum", by Sandius. In 1638 the Catholics in
Poland insisted on the banishment of the Socinians, who were in
consequence dispersed. It is evident from the pages of Bayle
that the sect was dreaded in Europe; many of the princes were
said to favour it secretly, and it was predicted that
Socinianism would overrun Europe. Bayle, however, endeavours to
dispel these fears by dwelling upon the vigorous measures taken
to prevent its spread in Holland. Thus, in 1639, at the
suggestion of the British Ambassador, all the states of Holland
were advised of the probable arrival of the Socinians after
their expulsion from Poland; while in 1653 very stringent
decrees were passed against them. The sect never had a great
vogue in England; it was distasteful to Protestants who, less
logical, perhaps, but more conservative in their views, were not
prepared to go to the lengths of the Continental Reformers. In
1612 we find the names of Leggatt and Wightman mentioned as
condemned to death for denying the Divinity of Christ. Under the
Commonwealth, John Biddle was prominent as an upholder of
Socinian principles; Cromwell banished him to the Scilly Isles,
but he returned under a writ of habeas corpus and became
minister of an Independent church in London. After the
Restoration, however, Biddle was cast again into prison, where
he died in 1662. The Unitarians are frequently identified with
the Socinians, but there are fundamental differences between
their doctrines.
Fundamental Doctrines
These may be gathered from the "Catechism of Racow", mentioned
above and from the writings of Socinus himself, which are
collected in the "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum". The basis was,
of course, private judgment; the Socinians rejected authority
and insisted on the free use of reason, but they did not reject
revelation. Socinus, in his work "De Auctoritate Scripturae
Sacrae", went so far as to reject all purely natural religion.
Thus for him the Bible was everything, but it had to be
interpreted by the light of reason. Hence he and his followers
thrust aside all mysteries; as the Socinian John Crell (d. 1633)
says in his "De Deo et ejus Attributis", "Mysteries are indeed
exalted above reason, but they do not overturn it; they by no
means extinguish its light, but only perfect it". This would be
quite true for a Catholic, but in the mouth of Socinian it meant
that only those mysteries which reason can grasp are to be
accepted. Thus both in the Racovian Catechism and in Socinus's
"Institutiones Religionis Christianae", only the unity,
eternity, omnipotence, justice, and wisdom of God are insisted
on, since we could be convinced of these; His immensity,
infinity, and omnipresence are regarded as beyond human
comprehension, and therefore unnecessary for salvation. Original
justice meant for Socinus merely that Adam was free from sin as
a fact, not that he was endowed with peculiar gifts; hence
Socinus denied the doctrine of original sin entirely. Since,
too, faith was for him but trust in God, he was obliged to deny
the doctrine of justification in the Catholic sense; it was
nothing but a judicial act on the part of God. There were only
two sacraments, and, as these were held to be mere incentives to
faith, they had no intrinsic efficacy. Infant baptism was of
course rejected. There was no hell; the wicked were annihilated.
Christology
This point was particularly interesting, as on it the whole of
Socinianism turns. God, the Socinians maintained, and rightly is
absolutely simple; but distinction of persons is destructive of
such simplicity; therefore, they concluded the doctrine of the
Trinity is unsound. Further, there can be no proportion between
the finite and the infinite, hence there can be no incarnation,
of the Deity, since that would demand some such proportion. But
if, by an impossibility, there were distinction of persons in
the Deity, no Divine person could be united to a human person,
since there can by no unity between two individualities. These
arguments are of course puerile and nothing but ignorance of
Catholic teaching can explain the hold which such views obtained
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As against the first
argument, see St. Thomas, (Summa I:12:1, ad 4); for the solution
of the others see Petavius. But the Socinians did not become
Arians, as did Campanus and Gentilis. The latter was one of the
original society which held its meetings at Vicenza; he was
beheaded at Berne in 1566. They did not become Tritheists, as
Gentilis himself was supposed by some to be. Nor did they become
Unitarians, as might have been expected. Socinus had indeed many
affinities with Paul of Samosata and Sabellius; with them he
regarded the Holy Spirit as merely an operation of God, a power
for sanctification. But his teaching concerning the person of
Christ differed in some respects from theirs. For Socinus,
Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was
the Word of God as being His interpreter (interpres divinae
voluntatis). The passages from St. John which present the Word
as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of
regeneration only. At the same time Christ was miraculously
begotten: He was a perfect man, He was the appointed mediator,
but He was not God, only deified man. In this sense He was to be
adored; and it is here precisely that we have the dividing line
between Socinianism and Unitarianism, for the latter system
denied the miraculous birth of Christ and refused Him adoration.
It must be confessed that, on their principles, the Unitarians
were much more logical.
Redemption and Sacraments
Socinus's views regarding the person of Christ necessarily
affected his teaching on the office of Christ as Redeemer, and
consequently on the efficacy of the sacraments. Being purely
man, Christ did not work out our redemption in the sense of
satisfying for our sins; and consequently we cannot regard the
sacraments as instruments whereby the fruits of that redemption
are applied to man. Hence Socinus taught that the Passion of
Christ was merely an example to us and a pledge of our
forgiveness. All this teaching is syncretized in the Socinian
doctrine regarding the Last Supper; it was not even
commemorative of Christ's Passion, it was rather an act of
thanksgiving for it.
The Church and Socianism
Needless to say, the tenets of the Socinians have been
repeatedly condemned by the Church. As antitrinitarianists, they
are opposed to the express teaching of the first six councils;
their view of the person of Christ is in contradiction to the
same councils, especially that of Chalcedon and the famous
"Tome" (Ep. xxviii) of St. Leo the Great (cf. Denzinger, no.
143). For its peculiar views regarding the adoration of Christ,
cg. can. ix of the fifth Ecumenical Synod (Denz., 221). It is
opposed, too, to the various creeds, more especially to that of
St. Athanasius. It has also many affinities with the Adoptionist
heresy condemned in the Plenary Council of Frankfort, in 794,
and in the second letter of Pope Hadrian I to the bishops of
Spain (cf. Denz., 309-314). Its denial of the Atonement is in
opposition to the decrees against Gotteschalk promulgated in 849
(cf. Denz., 319), and also to the definition of the Fourth
Lateran Council against the Albigensians (Denz., 428; cf. also
Conc. Trid., Sess. xxii., cap. i. de Sacrificio Missae, in
Denz., 938). The condemned propositions of Abelard (1140) might
equally well stand for those of the Socinians (cf. Denz., 368
sqq.). The same must be said of the Waldensian heresy: the
Profession of Faith drawn up against them by Innocent III might
be taken as a summary of Socinian errors. The formal
condemnation of Socinianism appeared first in the Constitution
of Paul IV, "Cum quorundam:, 1555 (Denz., 993); this was
confirmed in 1603 by Clement VIII, or "Dominici gregis", but it
is to be noted that both of these condemnations appeared before
the publication of the "Catechism of Racow" in 1605, hence they
do not adequately reflect the formal doctrines of Socinianism.
At the same time it is to be remarked, that according to many,
this catechism itself does not reflect the doctrines really held
by the leaders of the party; it was intended for the laity
alone. From the decree it would appear that in 1555 and again in
1603 the Socinians held:
+ that there was no Trinity,
+ that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and Holy
Spirit,
+ that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit, but begotten by
St. Joseph,
+ that His Death and Passion were not undergone to bring about
our redemption,
+ that finally the Blessed Virgin was not the Mother of God,
neither did she retain her virginity.
It would seem from the Catechism that the Socinians of 1605 held
that Christ was at least miraculously conceived, though in what
sense they held this is not clear.
HUGH POPE
Sociology
Sociology
The claims of sociology (socius, companion; logos, science) to a
place in the hierarchy of sciences are subjected to varied
controversy. It has been held that there is no distinct problem
for a science of sociology, no feature of human society not
already provided for in the accepted social sciences. Again it
has been claimed that while the future may hold out prospects
for a science such as sociology, its present condition leaves
much to be desired. Furthermore, among sociologists themselves
discussion and disagreement abound concerning aims, problems,
and methods of the science. Beyond this confusion in scientific
circles, misunderstanding results from the popular habit of
confounding sociology with philanthropy, ethics, charity, and
relief, social reform, statistics, municipal problems,
socialism, sanitation, criminology, and politics. It is hardly
to be expected that differences of opinion would not occur when
scholars endeavour to describe in simple terms the complex
social processes; to pack a vast array of historical and
contemporaneous facts in rigid logical classes, and to mark off
for research purposes sections of reality which in fact overlap
at a hundred points. Nevertheless, efforts to create a science
of sociology have led to notable results. Minds of a very high
order have been attracted to the work; abundant literature of
great excellence has been produced; neighbouring sciences have
been deeply affected by the new point of view which Sociology
has fostered; and the teaching of the science has attained to
undisputed recognition in the universities of the world.
It is the aim of economic science to investigate the forms,
relations, and processes that occur among men in their
associated efforts to make immediate or mediate provision for
their physical wants. The science deals with the phenomena
resulting from the production, distribution, and consumption of
wealth. The science of politics is concerned with the stable
social relations resulting from the efforts of sovereign social
units to maintain themselves in integrity in their internal and
external relations and to promote human progress. The state is
the institution in which these activities centre. Hence, the
forms in which sovereignty is clothed, the processes of change
which occur among them, and the varying functions of government
are central problems in this field of investigation. The science
of religions aims at describing the stable social relations
which occur when men collectively endeavour to understand the
law of their relation to a Supreme Being and to adjust their
worship and conduct to His supreme will. The science of law is
concerned with those principles, relations, and institutions
through which the more important relations between the one and
the many are defined, directed, and sanctioned by the sovereign
state. The science of ethics aims at expounding the principles
and sanctions by which all human conduct, both individual and
social, is adjusted to the supreme end of man; or, in the
Christian sense of the term, to the will of God. The science of
history, which assumes the law of continuity in human society,
endeavours to look out over its whole surface, to discover and
describe in a large way the processes of change that have
occurred in social relations of whatsoever kind. Each of these
social sciences is analytical or descriptive, but in its
complete development it should have a normative or directive
side. To use the technical phrase, it is teleological. The
complete function of each of them should include the setting
forth of a purpose for human conduct and should offer direction
towards it, which is modified by the relations in which each
stands to the others.
Some sociologists endeavour to locate their science as logically
antecedent to all of these. According to this view sociology
should occupy itself with general phases of the processes of
human association and should furnish an introduction to the
special social sciences. Others endeavour to locate sociology as
the philosophical synthesis of the results of the special social
sciences, in which view it resembles somewhat the philosophy of
history. Giddings includes both functions in his description of
the science. He says in his "Principles of sociology": "While
Sociology in the broadest sense of the word is the comprehensive
science of society, coextensive with the entire field of the
special social sciences, in a narrower sense and for the
purposes of university study and of general exposition it may be
defined as the science of social elements and first principles.
. . . Its far-reaching principles are the postulates of special
sciences and as such they co-ordinate the whole body of social
generalizations and bind them together in a large scientific
whole" (p. 33).
There is a general tendency towards the establishment of a
single dominant interest in social groups. Periods of unstable
equilibrium tend to be followed by constructive epochs in which
some one social interest tends to dominate. This is the case
when social groups are primitive and isolated as well as when
they are highly organized and progressive. It may be the food
interest, the maintenance of the group against invasion, the
thirst for conquest incarnate in a leader, or the establishment
of the Kingdom of God on earth that serves as the basis of
social unity. In any case, the tendency of social groups towards
unity is practically universal. In earlier stages of
civilization the process is relatively simple, but to-day, when
differences of climate, race, environment, type, and place are
overcome by progress in transportation, travel, communication,
and industry, the process is highly complex. Political
institutions, languages, and race traditions no longer bound the
horizon of the thinker. To-day all states are submerged in the
larger view of humanity. All cultures, civilizations, centuries,
all wars, and armaments, all nations and customs are before the
social student. Origins heretofore hidden are exposed to his
confused gaze. Interpretations, venerable with age and powerful
from heretofore unquestioning acceptance, are swept away and
those that are newer are substituted. Dozens of social sciences
flow with torrential impatience, hurling their discoveries at
the feet of the student, Thousands of minds are busy day and
night gathering facts, offering interpretations, and seeking
relations. The social sciences have become so overburdened with
facts and so confused by varying interpretations that they tend
to split into separate subsidiary sciences in the hope that the
mind may thus escape its own limitations and find help in its
power of generalization. Economic factors and processes are
studied more industriously than ever before, but they are found
to have in themselves vital bearings other than economic.
Political, religious, educational, and social facts are found
saturated with heretofore unsuspected meanings, which in each
particular case the science itself is unable to handle.
In this situation three general lines of work present
themselves.
+ There is the need of careful study of commonplace social facts
from a point of view wider than that fostered in each
particular social science.
+ The results obtained within the different social sciences and
among them should be brought together in general
interpretations.
+ A social philosophy is needed which will endeavour to take the
established results of these sciences and put them together
through the cohesive power of metaphysics and philosophy into
an attempted interpretation of the whole course of human
society itself.
Professor Small thus describes the situation: "We need a
genetic, 8tatic, and teleological account of associated human
life; a statement which can be relied upon as the basis of a
philosophy of conduct. In order to derive such a statement it
would be necessary to complete a programme of analyzing and
synthesizing the social process in all of its phases."
On the whole the sociological treatment of social facts is much
wider than that found in the other social sciences and its
interpretations are consequently broader. An endeavour is made
in following out the social point of view to study social facts
in the full complement of their organic relations. Thus, for
instance, if the sociologist studies the question of woman
suffrage, it appears as a phase in a world-movement. He goes
back through the available history of all times and
civilizations endeavouring to trace the changing place of woman
in industry, in the home, education, and before the law. By
looking outward to the horizon and backwards to the vanishing
point of the perspective of history, the sociologist endeavours
to discover all of the relations of the suffrage movement which
confronts us to-day and tries to interpret its relation to the
progress of the race. He will discover that the marriage rate,
the birth rate, the movement for higher education, the demand
for political and social equality are not unrelated facts but
are organically connected in the processes that centre on woman
in human society. The student of economics, politics, ethics, or
law will be directly interested in particular phases of the
process. But the sociologist will aim at reaching an
all-inclusive view in order to interpret the entire movement in
its organic relations to historical and actual social processes.
Likewise, whether the problem be that of democracy, liberty,
equality, war, armaments and arbitration, tariffs or inventions,
the organization of labour, revolution, political parties,
centralization of wealth, conflicts among social classes, the
sociologist will endeavour to discover their wider bearings and
their place in the social processes of which they are part.
The method employed in sociology is primarily inductive. At
times ethnological and biological methods have predominated but
their sway has been diminished in recent years. Sociology
suffers greatly from its failure to establish as yet a
satisfactory basis of classification for social phenomena.
Although much attention has been given to this problem the
results achieved still leave much to be desired. The general
point of view held in sociology, as distinct from the particular
point of view held in the special social sciences, renders this
problem of classification particularly difficult and causes the
science to suffer from the very mass of indiscriminate material
which its scholarship has brought to view. Hence, the process of
observation and interpretation has been somewhat uncertain and
results have been subjected to vehement discussion. The
fundamental problem for sociology is to discover and to
interpret co-existences and sequences among social phenomena. In
its study of origins and of historical development of social
forms, sociology necessarily makes use of ethnological methods.
It resorts extensively to comparative methods in its endeavour
to correlate phenomena related to the same social process as
they appear in different times and places. The statistical
method is of the highest importance in determining quantities
among social phenomena, while the prevailing tendency to look
upon society from a psychological point of view has led to the
general method of psychological analysis. The efforts to develop
a systematic sociology deductively have not yet led to any
undisputed results although the evolutionary hypothesis prevails
widely. The range of methods to be found among sociologists
might be fairly well illustrated among American writers by a
comparison of the works of Morgan, Ward, Giddings, Baldwin,
Cooley, Ross, Sumner, Mayo-Smith, and Small.
In as far as modern sociology has been developed on the
philosophical side it has naturally been unable to remain free
of metaphysics. It shows a marked tendency towards Agnosticism,
Materialism, and Determinism. "He would be a bold man", says
Professor Giddings, addressing the Amer. Economic Association in
1903, "who to-day after a thorough training in the best
historical scholarship should venture to put forth a philosophy
of history in terms of the divine ideas or to trace the plan of
an Almighty in the sequence of human events. On the other hand,
those interpretations that are characterized as materialistic .
. . are daily winning serious respect." Even when the science
has been confined to the humbler role of observation and
interpretation of particular social facts and processes, its
devotees have been unable to refrain from assumptions which are
offensive to the Christian outlook on life. Theoretically,
social facts may he observed as such, regardless of philosophy.
But social observation which ignores the moral and social
interpretation of social facts and processes is necessarily
incomplete. One must have some principle of interpretation when
one interprets, and one always tends towards interpretation.
Thus it is that even descriptive sociology tends to become
directive or to offer interpretations, and in so doing it often
takes on a tone with which the Christian cannot agree.
If, for instance, the sociologist proposes a standard family of
a limited number of children in the name of human progress, by
implication he assumes an attitude towards the natural and
Divine law which is quite repugnant to Catholic theology. Again,
when he interprets divorce in its relation to supposed social
progress alone and finds little if any fault with it, he lays
aside for the moment the law of marriage given by Christ. When,
too, the sociologist studies the relation of the State to the
family and the individual or the relations of the Church and the
State he comes into direct contact with the fundamental
principles of Catholic social philosophy. When he studies the
religious phenomena of history, he cannot avoid taking an
attitude toward the distinctive claims of Christianity in his
interpretation of the facts of its history. Thus it is that
sociology, not only on its philosophical side but also on the
side of observation, interpretations, and social direction,
tends to take on a tone that is often foreign to and as often
antagonistic to Catholic philosophy. Professor Ward would forbid
pure sociology to have anything to do with the direction of
human conduct. He says, for instance, in his "Pure Sociology":
"All ethical considerations in however wide a sense that
expression may be understood must be ignored for the time being
and attention concentrated upon the effort to determine what
actually is. Pure Sociology has no concern with what Sociology
ought to be or with any social ideals. It confines itself
strictly with the present and the past, allowing the future to
take care of itself." But he would give to what he terms Applied
Sociology the function of directing society toward its immediate
ideals. He says: "The subject matter of Pure Sociology is
achievement, that of Applied Sociology is improvement. The
former relates to the past and the present, the latter to the
future." Sociology can scarcely avoid interpretation and
direction of human conduct and hence it can hardly be expected
to avoid taking very definite attitudes towards the Christian
outlook on life.
Modern sociology hopes to arrive at a metaphysics through the
systematic observation and interpretation of present and past
social facts and processes. In the Christian view of life,
however, the social sciences are guided by a sanctioned
metaphysics and philosophy. This philosophy is derived not from
induction but from Revelation. This view of life accepts at the
outset as Divinely warranted the moral and social precepts
taught or re-enforced by Christ. Thus, it looks out upon the
real largely from the standpoint of the ideal and judges the
former by the latter. It does not, of course, for a moment
forget that the systematic observation of life and knowledge of
its processes are essential to the understanding and application
of the Divine precepts and to the establishment of the
sanctioned spiritual ideals which it professes. But Christian
social philosophy did not, for example, derive its doctrine of
human brotherhood by induction; it received it directly from the
lips of Christ. And the consequences of that Christian principle
in human history are beyond all calculation. The Christian view
of life does not confound the absolute with the conventional in
morality, although in the literature of Christianity too much
emphasis may at times be placed upon what is relative. A
Christian sociology, therefore, would be one that carries with
it always the philosophy of Christ. It could not look with
indifference on the varied and complicated social processes amid
which we live and move. In all of its study and interpretation
of what is going on in life -- which is largely the function of
sociology -- it never surrenders concern for what ought to be,
however clearly or dimly this "ought" is seen. While modern
sociology is seeking descriptive laws of human desires and is
endeavouring to classify human interests and to account for
social functions, it is seeking merely for changes,
uniformities, and interpretations unconcerned with any relation
of these to the Divine law. Christian sociology, on the
contrary, is actuated mainly by concern about the relations of
social changes to the law and Revelation of God. It classifies
processes, institutions, and relations as right or wrong, good
or bad, and offers to men directive laws of human desire and
distinctive standards of social valuations by which social
conduct should be governed.
Economics as it developed under Christian influences related
largely to the search for justice in property relations among
men rather than to the evolution of property itself. What ever
attempts were made to correlate and interpret economic
phenomena, they were inspired largely by the search for justice
and by the hope of holding industrial relations true to the law
of justice as it was understood. Political science as it
developed under Christian influence never lost sight of the
Divine sanction of civil authority. The study of the forms and
changes of government, little as the underlying processes were
then understood, never departed far from the thought of the
state as a natural and Christian phenomenon and the exercise of
its authority as a delegated power from on high. Thus, whatever
there was of social science, rudimentary because of the static
view of society which obtained, it grew out of the study and
application of the moral and social principles derived from the
Revelation of God and presented to the believer through the
instrumentality of the Church. The great emphasis placed in our
days of wonderful social investigation and of world-views of
social processes causes those earlier attempts at social science
to appear crude, yet they developed organically out of their
historical surroundings, retaining, for all time, titles to no
mean consideration. Scattered here and there throughout
theological and moral treatises in Christian literature there is
a vast amount of sociological material, which has its value in
our own time. The present-day endeavours of sociology to
classify human desires and fundamental interests appear to have
been anticipated in a modest way in the work of the medieval
Scholastics. Theological treatises on human acts and their
morality reveal a very practical understanding of the influence
of objective and subjective environment on character. Treatises
on sin, on the virtues, on good and bad example touch constantly
on social facts and processes as then understood. The mainspring
of all of this work, however, was not to show forth social
processes as such, not to look for theretofore unknown law, but
to enable the individual to discover himself in the social
process and to hold his conduct true to his ideals.
To some extent there is confusion in speaking of sociology in
this way since reference appears to be made rather to moral
direction than to social investigation. The relations between
all of the social sciences are intimate. The results established
in the fields of the social sciences will always have the
greatest importance for Christian ethics. It must take up the
undisputed results of sociological investigation and widen its
definitions at times. It must restate rights and obligations in
the terms of newer social relations and adjust its own system to
much that it can welcome from the hands of the splendid
scholarship now devoted to social study. Bouquillon (q. v.), who
was a distinguished theologian, complained that we had not paid
sufficient attention to the results of modern social research.
Illustration may be found in the problem of private property,
which is a storm centre in modern life and is the object of most
acute study from the standpoint of the social sciences. Suum
cuique may be called the law of justice that is back of all
social changes and is sanctioned for all time. But the social
processes which change from time to time the content of suum may
not be neglected. Changes in the forms of property, varied
consequences from the failure to have it at all and from the
having of it in excess, are seen about us every day. It is
undeniably the business of ethics to teach the sanctions of
private property and defend them, but it must willingly learn
the sociological meaning of property, the significance of
changes in its forms, and the laws that govern these changes.
This is largely the work of other social sciences. Ethics must
proclaim the inviolable natural rights of the individual to
private property in certain forms. It must proclaim the
pernicious moral consequences that may flow from certain
property conditions, but it will fail of its high mission unless
in its indispensable ethical work it take account of the
established results of social investigation. Economics, ethics,
sociology, politics are drawn together by the complex problems
of property and each has much to learn from the others. And so,
whether the problem be that of the Christian family, the
relations of social classes, altruism, the modification of the
forms of government, the changing status of woman, the
representative of the Christian outlook on life may not for a
moment ignore the results of these particular social sciences.
Closer relations have been established between Christian ethics
and sociology in modern days. Modern social conditions with
their rapid changes, accompanied by ethical and philosophical
unrest, have set up a challenge which the Christian Church must
meet without hesitation. The Catholic Church has not failed to
speak out definitely in the circumstances. The School of
Catholic Social Reform, which has reached such splendid
development on the European continent, represents the closer
sympathy between the old Christian ethics and the later
sociological investigation. Problems of poverty seen in its
organic relations to social organization as a whole, problems
and challenges raised by the modern industrial labouring class,
demand for a widening of the definitions of individual and
social responsibility to meet the facts of modern social power
of whatsoever kind, reaffirmations of the rights of individuals
have been taken account of in this whole Christian modern
movement with the happiest result. There has been produced an
abundant literature in which traditional Christian ethics take
ample account of modern social investigations and the theories
thus formulated have created a movement for social amelioration
which is playing a notable part in the present-day history of
Europe.
Since all of the social sciences are concerned with the same
complex fact of human association, it is but to be expected that
the older sciences would have contained in their literature much
that in the long run is turned over to the newer ones.
Sociological material is found, therefore, throughout the
history of the other social sciences. The word "sociology" comes
from Auguste Comte, who used it in his course of positive
philosophy, to indicate one of the sections in his scheme of
sciences. Spencer sanctioned the use of the word and gave it a
place in permanent literature by using it unreservedly in his
own system of philosophy. He undertook to explain all social
changes as phases in the great inclusive process of evolution.
Society was conceived of as an organism. Research and exposition
were directed largely by the biological analogy. Schaeffle,
Lilienfeld, and Rene Worms were later exponents of this same
view. Later schools in sociology have emancipated themselves
from the sway of the biological analogy and have turned toward
ethnological, anthropological, and psychological aspects of the
great problems involved. Repeated attempts have been made to
discover the fundamental unifying principle by which all social
processes may be classified and explained, but none of them have
met general acceptance. The drift to-day is largely toward the
psychological aspects of human association. Professors Giddings
and Baldwin may be looked upon as its representatives in the
United States. Aside from these attempts at systematic or
philosophical sociology there is scarcely an aspect of human
association which is not now under investigation from the
sociological standpoint. That this activity in a field of such
great interest to the welfare of the human race promises much
for human progress is beyond question. Even now statesmen,
religious teachers, educators, and leaders in movements for
social amelioration do not fail to take advantage of the results
of sociological research.
See ETHICS; PSYCHOLOGY; CHURCH; and articles on the other social
sciences.
The following text-books summarize the field of sociology from
various standpoints: WARD, Outlines of Sociology (New York,
1898); DEALY, Sociology (New York, 1909); GUMPLOWICZ, Outlines
of Soc. (tr. MOORE), pub. by Amer. Acad. of Soc. and Pol. Sc.
(1899); GIDDINGS, Elem. of Soc. (New York, 1898); BASCOM,
Sociology; BLACKMAR, Elem. of Soc. (New York, 1905);
STUCKENBERG, Sociology (New York, 1903).
The following general treatises aim to present the new
sociological point of view: Ross, Social Control (New York,
1901); IDEM, Soc. Psychology (New York, 1908); COOLEY, Soc.
Organization (New York, 1909); SMALL, General Soc. (Chicago,
1905); IDEM, Meaning of Social Science (Chicago, 1910);
McDOUGAL, Soc. Psychology (London); BALDWIN, Social and Ethical
Interpretations (New York, 1902); KIDD, Soc. Evolution (New
York, 1894).
Systematic Treatises: SPENCER, Principle, of Soc.; SCHAEFFLE,
Bau und Leben des sozialen Korpers; LILIENFELD, Gedanken ueber
die Sozialwissenschaft der Zukunft (5 vols., Mitau, 1873);
LETOURNEAU, La sociologie, tr. TRALLOPE (Paris, 1884); TARDE,
The Laws of Imitation, tr. PARSONS (New York, 1903); SIMMEL,
Soziologie (Leipzig, 1908); WARD, Pure Soc. (New York, 1903);
IDEM, Applied Soc. (New York, 1906); GIDDINGS, Principles of
Soc. (New York, 1899); IDEM, Inductive Soc. (New York, 1901).
Periodicals: Annales de l'inst. interna. de soc.; Rev. intern.
de soc.; American Jour. of Soc.
Discussions of the nature and relations of sociology will be
found in Reports of meetings of economic, historical, and
political sciences associations and in text-books on the various
social sciences. For discussion of the science from a Catholic
standpoint, see SLATER, Modern Sociology in the Irish Theo.
Quart., VI, nos. 21, 22.
WILLIAM J. KERBY.
Diocese of Socorro
Diocese of Socorro
(DE SUCCURSU.)
Established in 1895 as a suffragan see of the Archdiocese of
Bogota, in the Republic of Colombia, South America. The Catholic
population in 1910 numbered 230,000. The city of Socorro arose
at Chiancon, the settlement of an Indian chief of the same name,
in 1540 defeated and captured by the discoverer Martin Galeano.
In 1681 the village moved to its present site under the auspices
of Our Lady of Succour (Socorro), with which name the rank of
parish was given it in 1683, and it was definitively constructed
eight years later. In 1771 it was raised to the rank of a town.
This city was one of the first in starting the Colombian
movement for Independence, for as late as 1781 there was a
revolt against the Spanish authorities. Socorro is the capital
of the province of the same name, in the Department of
Santander. The present bishop is the Rt. Rev. Evaristo Blanco.
(See COLOMBIA, REPUBLIC OF.)
JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE
Socrates
Socrates
A historian of the Early Church, b. at Constantinople towards
the end of the fourth century. Nothing is known of his parentage
and his early years with the exception of a few details found in
his own works. He tells us himself (Hist. eccl., V, xxiv) that
he studied under the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, and
from the title of scholasticus which is given to him it has been
concluded that he belonged to the legal profession. The greater
part of his life was spent in Constantinople, for which reason,
as he admits, the affairs of that city occupy such a large part
in his works. From the manner in which he speaks of other cities
and from his references as an eyewitness to events which
happened outside Constantinople, he is credited with having
visited other countries in the East. Though a layman he was
excellently qualified to recount the history of ecclesiastical
affairs. Love of history, especially the history of his own
time, and a warm admiration for Eusebius of Caesarea impelled
him to undertake the task in which he was sustained by the
urgent solicitation of a certain Theodorus to whom his work is
dedicated. His purpose was to continue the work of Eusebius down
to his own time; but in order to round out his narrative and to
supplement and revise some statements of Eusebius, he began at
the year 306, when Constantine was declared emperor. His work
ends with the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius the Younger,
439. The division of his history into seven books was based on
the imperial succession in the Eastern Empire. The first book
embraces events in the reign of Constantine (306-37): the second
those in the reign of Constantius (337-60): the third includes
the reigns of Julian and Jovian (360-4): the fourth deals with
the reign of Valens (364-78): the fifth with that of Theodosius
the Great (379-95): the sixth with that of Arcadius (393-408):
the seventh with the first thirty-one years of the reign of
Theodosius the Younger (408-39).
The general character of the work of Socrates can be judged from
his attitude on doctrinal questions. Living as he did in an age
of bitter polemics, he strove to avoid the animosities and
hatred engendered by theological differences. He was in entire
accord with the Catholic party in opposing the Arians,
Eunomians, Macedonians, and other heretics. The moderate tone,
however, which he used in speaking of the Novatians, and the
favourable references which he makes to them, have led some
authors into the belief that he belonged to this sect, but it is
now generally admitted that the expressions which he used were
based on his desire for impartiality and his wish to give even
his enemies credit for whatever good he could find in them. His
attitude towards the Church was one of unvarying respect and
submission. He honoured clerics because of their sacred calling,
and entertained the profoundest veneration for monks and the
monastic spirit. His ardent advocacy and defence of Christianity
did not, nevertheless, prevent him from using the writings of
pagan authors, nor from urging Christians to study them. Though
he entitled his work Ekklesiastike historia, Socrates did not
confine himself merely to recounting events in the history of
the Church. He paid attention to the military history of the
period, because he considered it necessary to relate these
facts, but principally "in order that the minds of the readers
might not become satiated with the repetition of the contentious
disputes of bishops, and their insidious designs against one
another; but more especially that it might be made apparent
that, whenever the affairs of the State were disturbed, those of
the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered
also" (Introd. to Book V). Though thus recognizing the intimate
relation of civil and ecclesiastical affairs, Socrates had no
well-defined theory of Church and State.
Socrates had a restricted idea of the scope and function of
history. To his mind the task of the historian consisted in
recording the troubles of mankind, for as long as peace
continues, those who desire to write histories will find no
materials for their purpose (VII, xlviii). As an example of
historical composition the work of Socrates ranks very high. The
simplicity of style which he cultivated and for which he was
reproached by Photius, is entirely in keeping with his method
and spirit. Not the least among his merits is the sedulousness
he exhibited in the collection of evidence. He had a truly
scientific instinct for primary sources, and the number of
authors he has drawn on proves the extent of his reading and the
thoroughness of his investigations. In addition to using the
works of such men as Athanasius, Evagrius, Palladius, Nestorius,
he drew freely on public and official documents, conciliar Acts,
encyclical letters, etc. As might be expected when writing of
events so close to his own time, he had to depend frequently on
the reports of eyewitnesses, but even then he used their
evidence with prudence and caution. Notwithstanding his industry
and impartiality, however, his work is not without serious
defects. Though restricting himself so largely to the affairs of
the Eastern Church, he is guilty of many serious omissions in
regard to other parts of Christendom. Thus, when he speaks of
the Church in the West, he is frequently guilty of mistakes and
omissions. Nothing for instance is said in his history about St.
Augustine. In questions of chronology, too, he is frequently at
fault, but he is by no means a persistent sinner in this
respect. The objection most frequently made in respect to
Socrates as a historian is that he was too credulous and that he
lent too ready an ear to stories of miracles and portents. This,
however, is a fault of the time rather than of the man, and was
shared by pagan as well as Christian authors. His most notable
characteristic, however, is his obvious effort to be thoroughly
impartial, as far as impartiality was consistent with
conviction. He held the scales equitably, and even when he
differed widely from men on matters of doctrine, he did not
allow his dissent from their views to find expression in
denunciation or abuse. His "Church History" was published by
Stephen (Paris, 1544) and by Valesius (Paris, 1668, reprinted at
Oxford by Parker, 1844, and in P. G., LXVII). A good translation
is given in the Post-Nicene Fathers, II (New York, 1890), with
an excellent memoir on Socrates by Zenos.
ST=C4UDLIN, Geschichte und Literatur der Kirchengeschichte
(Hanover, 1827); GEPPERT, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers
Socrates Scholasticus (Leipzig, 1898); MILLIGAN in Dict. Christ.
Biog., s. v. Socrates (2).
PATRICK S. HEALY
Socrates
Socrates
Greek philosopher and educational reformer of the fifth century
B.C.; born at Athens, 469 B.C.; died there, 399 B.C. After
having received the usual Athenian education in music (which
included literature), geometry, and gymnastics, he practised for
a time the craft of sculptor, working, we are told, in his
father's workshop. Admonished, as he tells us, by a divine call,
he gave up his occupation in order to devote himself to the
moral and intellectual reform of his fellow citizens. He
believed himself destined to become "a sort of gadfly" to the
Athenian State. He devoted himself to this mission with
extraordinary zeal and singleness of purpose. He never left the
City of Athens except on two occasions, one of which was the
campaign of Potidea and Delium, and the other a public religious
festival. In his work as reformer he encountered, indeedhe may
be said to have provoked, the opposition of the Sophists and
their influential friends. He was the most unconventional of
teachers and the least tactful. He delighted in assuming all
sorts of rough and even vulgar mannerisms, and purposely shocked
the more refined sensibilities of his fellow citizens. The
opposition to him culminated in formal accusations of impiety
and subversion of the existing moral traditions. He met these
accusations in a spirit of defiance and, instead of defending
himself, provoked his opponents by a speech in presence of his
judges in which he affirmed his innocence of all wrongdoing, and
refused to retract or apologize for anything that he had said or
done. He was condemned to drink the hemlock and, when the time
came, met his fate with a calmness and dignity which have earned
for him a high place among those who suffered unjustly for
conscience sake. He was a man of great moral earnestness, and
exemplified in his own life some of the noblest moral virtues.
At the same time he did not rise above the moral level of his
contemporaries in every respect, and Christian apologists have
no difficulty in refuting the contention that he was the equal
of the Christian saints. His frequent references to a "divine
voice" that inspired him at critical moments in his career are,
perhaps, best explained by saying that they are simply his
peculiar way of speaking about the promptings of his own
conscience. They do not necessarily imply a pathological
condition of his mind, nor a superstitous belief in the
existence of a "familiar demon".
Socrates was, above all things, a reformer. He was alarmed at
the condition of affairs in Athens, a condition which he was,
perhaps, right in ascribing to the Sophists. They taught that
there is no objective standard of the true and false, that that
is true which seems to be true, and that that is false which
seems to be false. Socrates considered that this theoretical
scepticism led inevitably to moral anarchy. If that is true
which seems to be true, then thatis good, he said, which seems
to be good. Up to this tome morality was taught not by
principles scientifically determined, but by instances,
proverbs, and apothegms. He undertook, therefore, first to
determine the conditions of universally valid moral principles a
science of human conduct. Self-knowledge is the starting point,
because, he believed, the greatest source of the prevalent
confusion was the failure to realize how little we know about
anything, in the true sense of the word know. The statesman, the
orator, the poet, think they know much about courage; for they
talk about it as being noble, and praiseworthy, and beautiful,
etc. But they are really ignorant of it until they know what it
is, in other words, until they know its definition. The definite
meaning, therefore, to be attached to the maxim "know thyself"
is "Realize the extent of thine own ignorance".
Consequently, the Socratic method of teaching included two
stages, the negative and the positive. In the negative stage,
Socrates, approaching his intended pupil in an attitude of
assumed ignorance, would begin to ask a question, apparently for
his own information. He would follow this by other questions,
until his interlocutor would at last be obliged to confess
ignorance of the subject discussed. Because of the pretended
deference which Socrates payed to the superior intelligence of
his pupil, this stage of the method was called "Socratic Irony".
In the positive stage of the method, once the pupil had
acknowledged his ignorance, Socrates would proceed to another
series of questions, each of which would bring out some phase or
aspect of the subject, so that when. at the end, the answers
were all summed up in a general statement, that statement
expressed the concept of the subject, or the definition.
Knowledge through concepts, or knowledge by definition, is the
aim, therefore, of the Socratic method. The entire process was
called "Hueristic", because it was a method of finding, and
opposed to "Eristic", which is the method of strife, or
contention. Knowledge through concepts is certain, Socrates
taught, and offers a firm foundation for the structure not only
of theoretical knowledge, but also of moral principles, and the
science of human conduct, Socrates went so far as tro maintain
that all right conduct depends on clear knowledge, that not only
does a definition of a virtue aid us in acquiring that virtue,
but that the definition of the virtue is the virtue. A man who
can define justice is just, and, in general, theoretical insight
into the principles of conduct is identical with moral
excellence in conduct; knowledge is virtue. Contrariwise,
ignorance is vice, and no one can knowingly do wrong. These
principles are, of couse only partly true. Their formulation,
however, at this time was of tremendous importance, because it
marks the beginning of an attempt to build up on general
principles a science of human conduct.
Socrates devoted little attention to questions of physics and
cosmogony. Indeed, he did not conceal his contempt for these
questions when comparing them with questions affecting man, his
nature and his destiny. He was, however, interested in the
question of the existence of God and formulated an argument from
design which was afterwards known as the "Teleological Argument"
for the existence of God. "Whatever exists for a useful purpose
must be the work of an intelligence" is the major premise of
Socrates' argument, and may be said to be the major premise,
explicit or implicit, of every teleological argument formulated
since his time. Socrates was profoundly convinced of the
immortality of the soul, although in his address to his judges
he argues against fear of death in such a way as apparently to
offer two alternatives: "Either death ends all things, or it is
the beginning of a happy life." His real conviction was that the
soul survives the body, unless, indeed, we are misled by our
authorities, Plato and Xenophon. In the absence of primary
sources Socrates, apparently, never wrote anything--we are
obliged to rely on these writers and on a few references of
Aristotle for our knowledge of what Socrates taught. Plato's
portrayal of Socrates is idealistic; when, however, we correct
it by reference to Xenophon's more practical view of Socrates'
teaching, the result cannot be far from historic truth.
WILLIAM TURNER
Sodality
Sodality
I
The sodalities of the Church are pious associations and are
included among the confraternities and archconfraternities. It
would not be possible to give a definition making a clear
distinction between the sodalities and other confraternities;
consequently the development and history of the sodalities are
the same as those of the religious confraternities. A general
sketch of these latter has been already given in the account of
the medieval confraternities of prayer (see Purgatorial
Societies). They are also mentioned in the article Scapular.
Confraternities and sodalities, in the present meaning of the
word, the only ones which will be here mentioned, had their
beginnings after the rise of the confraternities of prayer in
the early Middle Ages, and developed rapidly from the end of the
twelfth century, i.e. from the rise of the great ecclesiastical
orders. Proofs of this are to be found in the Bullaria and
annals of these orders, as those of the Dominicans, the
Carmelites, and the Servites. [Cf. Armellini, "Le chiese di
Roma" (2nd ed., Rome, 1891), 20 sqq.; "Historisch-politische
Blaetter", cxlviii (Munich, 1911), 759 sqq., 823 sqq.; Ebner,
"Die acht Bruederschaften des hl. Wolfgang in Regensburg" in
Mahler, "Der hl. Wolfgang" (Ratisbon, 1894), 182 sq.;
Villanueva, "Viage literario a las Iglesias de Espana", VIII
(Valencia, 1821), 258 sqq., Apendice IV; Gallia Christ., XI,
instr. 253 sq., n. XXVII; ibid., VI, instr. 366, n. XXXIV;
Mabillon, "Annales Ordinis Benedicti", VI, Lucca, 1745, 361
sqq., ad an. 1145; Martene, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", IV
(Paris, 1717), 165 sqq. "Confraternitas Massiliensis an. 1212
instituta"; "Monumenta O. Servorum B.M.V.", I, 107, ad an. 1264;
Gianius, "Annales O. Serv. B.M.V.", I (2nd ed., Lucca, 1719),
384, ad an. 1412; "Libro degli ordinamenti de la Compagnia di
Santa Maria del Carmine scritto nel 1280" (Bologna, 1867)].
Pious associations of this kind, however, soon appeared, which
were solely under the bishop and had no close connexion with an
order. An interesting example of such an association of the year
1183 is described in the "Histoire generale du Languedoc" (VI,
Toulouse, 1879, 106 sqq.), as an "association formed at Le Puy
for the restoration of peace". A carpenter named Pierre (Durant)
is given as the founder of this society. In regard to a
"Confraternity of the Mother of God" which existed at Naupactos
in Greece about 1050, see "La Confraternit`a di S. Maria di
Naupactos 1048", in the "Bullettino dell' Istituto storico
italiano", no 31 (Rome, 1910, 73 sqq.).
From the era of the Middle Ages very many of these pious
associations placed themselves under the special protection of
the Blessed Virgin, and chose her for patron under the title of
some sacred mystery with which she was associated. The main
object and duty of these societies were, above all, the practice
of piety and works of charity. The decline of ecclesiastical
life at the close of the Middle Ages was naturally accompanied
by a decline of religious associational life, the two being
related as cause and effect. However, as soon as the Church rose
to renewed prosperity in the course of the sixteenth century, by
the aid of the Counter-Reformation and the appearance of the new
religious congregations and associations, once more there sprang
up numerous confraternities and sodalities which laboured with
great success and, in many cases, are still effective.
Of the sodalities which came into existence just at this period,
particular mention should be made of those called the Sodalities
of the Blessed Virgin Mary (congregationes seu sodalitates B.
Mariae Virginis), because the name sodality was in a special
manner peculiar to these, also because their labours for the
renewal of the life of the Church were more permanent and have
lasted until the present time, so that these sodalities after
fully three hundred years still prosper and flourish. Even the
opponents of the Catholic Church seem to recognize this. The
article "Bruderschaften, kirchliche" in Herzog-Hauck,
"Realencyklopaedie fuer protestantische Theologie", discusses
almost exclusively the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary as
the pattern of Catholic sodalities. It cannot, indeed, be denied
that those sodalities are, by their spirit and entire
organization, better equipped than other confraternities to make
their members not only loyal Catholics but also true lay
apostles for the salvation and blessing of all around them. In
the course of time other pious Church societies sprang from the
Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or were quickened by
these to new zeal and fruitful labours, e. g. the work of
foreign missions, the "Society of St. Vincent de Paul", the
"Society of St. Francis Regis", and many others. While all other
confraternities and sodalities have as their chief end a single
pious devotion or exercise, a peculiar aim of the Sodalities of
the Blessed Virgin Mary is, by means of the true veneration of
the Blessed Virgin, to build up and renew the whole inner man in
order to render him capable of and zealous for all works of
spiritual love and charity. Consequently these sodalities are
described below in detail separately from the others.
II
All sodalities, pious associations, and confraternities may be
divided into three classes, although those classes are not
absolutely distinct from one another. The first class, A,
includes the confraternities, which seek mainly to attain piety,
devotion, and the increase of love of God by special veneration
of God, of the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the saints. The
second class, B, consists of those sodalities which are founded
chiefly to promote the spiritual and corporal works of mercy.
The third class, C, may be considered to include those
associations of the Church the main object of which is the
well-being and improvement of a definite class of persons.
A. The first class includes:
(1) The "Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity with the White
Scapular" (see Scapular).
(2) The Confraternites of the Holy Ghost. In 1862 such a
confraternity was established for Austria- Hungary in the church
of the Lazarists at Vienna, and in 1887 it received the right of
aggregation for the whole of Germany. Special mention should
here be made of the "Archconfraternity of the Servants of the
Holy Ghost". It was first established in 1877 at the Church of
St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater, London. In 1878 it received
the papal confirmation and special indulgences, in the following
year it was raised to an archconfraternity with unlimited power
of aggregation for the whole world. The director of the
archconfraternity, to whom application for admission can be made
personally or by letter, is the superior of the Oblates of St.
Charles Borromeo, at the Church of St. Mary of the Angels,
Bayswater, London, W. A third confraternity for the
glorification of the Holy Ghost, especially among the heathen,
was established in the former collegiate Church of Our Lady at
Knechtsteden, Germany. It is directed by the Fathers of the Holy
Ghost and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Its organ is the
missionary monthly, "Echo aus Knechtsteden".
(3) There is no special confraternity in honour of the Heavently
Father. There is, however, an "Archconfraternity of the Most
Holy Name of God and of the Most Holy Name of Jesus". Originally
this formed two distinct confraternities, which owed their
origin to the Dominicans. At a later date they combined and were
united into one society, the establishment of which is under the
control of the general of the Dominicans. Paul V cancelled the
indulgences previously granted to the confraternity and granted
new ones. It is probable that the Brief of 21 Sept., 1274, of
Gregory IX, addressed to the general of the Domincans, gave the
first impulse to the founding of the above-mentioned
confraternities. In this Brief the pope called upon the
father-general to promote, by preaching, the veneration of the
Holy Name of Jesus among the people. In America especially this
society has spread widely and borne wonderful fruit. It has a
periodical, "The Holy Name Journal," and has been granted new
indulgences for those of its members who take part in its public
processions [Analecta Ord. Fratr. Praedic., XVII (1909), 325 sq.
See Holy Name, Society of the]. There are other confraternities
and sodalities, especially in France, and also in Rome and
Belgium, for the prevention of blasphemy against the name of God
and of the desecration of Sundays and feast days (Beringer, "Les
indulgences", II, 115 sqq.; cf. Act. S. Sed., I, 321).
(4) A triple series of confraternities has been formed about the
Person of the Divine Saviour for the veneration of the Most Holy
Sacrament, of the Sacred Heart, and of the Passion.
The confraternities of the Most Holy Sacrament were founded and
developed, strictly speaking, in Italy from the end of the
fifteenth century by the apostolic zeal of the Franciscans,
especially by the zeal of Cherubino of Spoleto and the Blessed
Bernardine of Feltre ("Acta SS.", Sept., VII, 837, 858). Yet as
early as 1462 a confraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament existed
in the Duchy of Juelich, in the Archdiocese of Cologne; other
Confraternities of the Most Holy Sacrament were also founded in
the Archdiocese of Cologne in the course of the fifteenth
century (cf. "Koeln. Pastoralblatt", 1900, 90). At Rome the
Confraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament was founded (1501) in
the Church of San Lorenzo in Damaso by the devotion and zeal of
a poor priest and four plain citizens. Julius II confirmed this
sodality by a Brief of 21 Aug., 1508, and wished to be entered
himself as a member in the register of the confraternity. It is
not, however, this sodality but another Roman confraternity that
has been the fruitful parent of the countless confraternities of
the Most Holy Sacrament which exist to-day everywhere in the
Catholic world (cf. Quetif-Echard, I, 197 sq.). This second
confraternity, due to the zeal of the Dominican Father, Thomas
Stella, was erected by Paul III on 30 Nov., 1539, in the
Dominican Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. This
confraternity alone is understood when mention is simply made of
the Confraternity of the Sacrament. Along with the honorary
title of archconfraternity it received numerous indulgences and
privileges by the Bull of 30 Nov., 1539. The indulgences were
renewed by Paul V. It was made known at its inception that this
confraternity could be established in parish churches, and that
such confraternities should share in the indulgences of the
archconfraternity without formal connexion with the Roman
confraternity. This privilege was reconfirmed at various times
by the popes who expressed the wish that the bishops would
establish the confraternity everywhere in all parish churches
(cf. Tacchi-Venturi, "La vita religiosa in Italia durante la
prima et`a della Compagnia di Gesu", Rome, 1900, 193 sqq.).
In the nineteenth century, however, confraternities for the
adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament were also established in
other countries, and these now extend all over the Catholic
world. Mention is made in the article Purgatorial Societies of
the "Archconfraternity of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed
Sacrament under the Protection of St. Benedict." This
association, that was founded in 1877 under Pius IX in Austria,
was transferred to North America in 1893 during the pontificate
of Leo XIII, and in 1910 received from Pius X the right of
extension throughout the entire world.
In 1848 a pious woman, Anne de Meeus, established at Brussels in
Belgium a religious society which had as its object to unite the
adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament with work for poor
churches. In 1853 this society was raised to an
archconfraternity for Belgium; soon after this separate
archconfraternities of the same kind were erected for Bavaria,
Austria, and Holland. At the same time there sprang from the
original society a female religious congregation which, after
receiving papal confirmation, established itself at Rome, and
since 1879 has conducted the archconfraternity from Rome. It has
authority to associate everywhere with itself confraternities of
the same name and purpose, and to share with these all its
indulgences. The archconfraternity has received large
indulgences and privileges, and labours with much success in
nearly all parts of the world. Entrance into this confraternity
is especially to be recommended to all altar societies. The full
title of the confraternity is "The Archconfraternity of the
Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Work of Poor
Churches". Any information desired as to the working of the
confraternity and the conditions of its establishment may be
obtained from its headquarters, Casa delle Adoratrici perpetue,
4 Via Nomentana, Rome. Since 1900 the religious association of
the Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration has had a house with a
chapel at Washington, U.S.A., from which they extend and conduct
the confraternity in America.
The "Society of the Most Holy Sacrament", founded by the
Venerable Pierre-Julien Eymard (d. 1868) also sought, by means
of a new confraternity established by it, to incite the faithful
to adoration and zeal for the glorification of Jesus Christ in
the Holy Eucharist. In 1897 this society was raised to an
archconfraternity with the right of aggregation throughout the
world. In 1898 its summary of indulgences was confirmed by the
Congregation of Indulgences. The main condition of membership is
a continuous hour of adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament once a
month. The headquarters of the confraternity are at Rome, in the
church of the Fathers of the Most Holy Sacrament, whence the
society has the name of "The Archconfraternity of the Most Holy
Sacrament in the Church of Sts. Andrew and Claudius at Rome"
(San Claudio, 160 Via del Pozzetto, Rome).
"The Perpetual Adoration of Catholic Nations" was founded at
Rome in 1883, its purpose being the union of the nations and
peoples of the world for perpetual solemn expiatory prayer in
order to avert God's just wrath and to implore His aid in the
grievous troubles of the Church. The association is conducted by
the Redemptorist Fathers in the Church of St. Joachim at Rome,
lately built in memory of the jubilee of Leo XIII as priest and
bishop. Special countries are assigned to each one of the
different days of the week for the adoration of reparation, e.
g. Thursday, North and Central America; Friday, South America.
The rector of the Church of St. Joachim (Prati di Castello,
Rome) is the director-general of the association, which has the
right to appoint diocesan directors in all countries, including
missionary ones. In order to enter the association, application
should be made to one of these directors or to the
director-general. Two other associations were founded in France
for the purpose of expiation and atonement; these have already
extended over the world. One is the "Association of the
Communion of Reparation", the other the "Archconfraternity of
the Holy Mass of Reparation". The "Association of the Communion
of Reparation", established in 1854 by Father Drevon, S.J., was
canonically erected in 1865 at Paray-le-Monial, in the monastery
where the Divine Saviour had commanded Blessed Margaret Mary
Alacoque to make reparation by Holy Communion for the
ingratitude of men. This is also the purpose of the entire
association, which can be canonically erected anywhere. The
"Archconfraternity of the Holy Mass of Reparation" owes its
origin to a poor widow of Paris, in June, 1862. Each member
makes it his duty to attend a second Mass on Sundays and feast-
days as expiation for those who sinfully fail to attend Mass on
these days. In 1886 the confraternity was erected into an
archconfraternity with the right of aggregation for France. At a
later date other countries received in like manner a similar
archconfraternity. Even in parts of the world where no such
archconfraternity exists it is easy to be received into the
confraternity. By a Decree of 7 Sept., 1911, of the Holy Office,
all former indulgences were cancelled, and richer ones, to be
shared equally by all the archconfraternities and
confraternities of the Holy Mass of Reparation, were granted
(Ad. Apost. Sed., III, 476 sq.). In this class belongs also the
"Ingolstadt Mass Association". (See Purgatorial Societies.)
(5) As early as 1666 confraternities of the Blessed Jean Eudes
for the united veneration of the Heart of Jesus and the Heart of
Mary were established. It was not until after the death of
Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque that there arose confraternities
for the promotion of the adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
in the manner desired by her. During the years 1697-1764 more
than a thousand such confraternities were erected by papal
Briefs and granted indulgences. At Rome the first "Confraternity
of the Sacred Heart of Jesus" was established in 1729 by the
efforts of Father Joseph Gallifety, S.J. This confraternity
still exists at the Church of St. Theodore, at the foot of the
Palatine. The membership of this "Confraternity of the Sacconi"
has included celebrated and holy men. Only men, however, can
belong to it. Consequently it was given to another confraternity
of the Sacred Heart to spread from Rome over the entire world.
This is the sodality established in 1797 by Father Felici, S.J.,
in the little Church of Our Lady ad Pineam, called in Cappella.
The sodality was raised in 1803 to an archconfraternity, and was
afterward transferred by Leo XII to the Church of Santa Maria
della Pace. Application to join this confraternity is made at
the church. More than 10,000 confraternities have already united
with it. The confraternities of the Sacred Heart erected in
Belgium can unite with the archconfraternity of Paray-le-Monial,
those established in France can either join this
archconfraternity or that at Moulins. In addition a new
confraternity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was established in
1876 at Montmartre, Paris. In 1894 this society received the
right to incorporate into itself other confraternities of the
same name and object in any part of the world and to share its
indulgences with these. The object of this confraternity, like
that of the great church at Montmartre, is expiatory, and the
society is to pray for the freedom of the pope and the salvation
of human society.
The "Archconfraternity of Prayer and Penance in honour of the
Heart of Jesus", founded at Dijon in 1879 with the right of
aggregation for the entire world, has, since 1894, been
established at the church of Montmartre. A wish expressed by the
Divine Saviour long before to Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque was
fulfilled on 14 March, 1863. On this day the "Guard of Honour of
the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus" was founded in the monastery of
the Visitation at Bourg-en-Bresse, France. The name expresses
the object of this sodality, which is to collect faithful hearts
around the Saviour for constant adoration and love and to make
reparation to Him for the ingratitude of men. In 1864 the
association at Bourg-en-Bresse was confirmed as a confraternity,
and in 1878 was made an archconfraternity for France and
Belgium. In 1879 the confraternity was established at Rome in
the Church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius, and defined as an
archconfraternity for Italy and all countries which have no
archconfraternity of their own. In 1833 the confraternity of
Brooklyn, New York, conducted by the Sisters of the Visitation,
was confirmed by Leo XIII as an archconfraternity, with the
right of aggregation for the United States. For the "Apostleship
of Prayer" see The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, 633; Hilgers,
"Das Goldene Buechlein", Ratisbon, 1911. In 1903 Leo XIII
established at the Church of St. Joachim at Rome a special
"Archconfraternity of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus", granting
it the right to unite sodalities bearing the same name as
itself. The confraternity is intended to offer in a special
manner adoration, gratitude, and love to the Heart of Jesus for
the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Mention should also be
made of the "Archconfraternity of the Holy Agony of Our Lord
Jesus Christ", conducted by the Lazarist Fathers in Paris, which
was established in 1862 in the Diocese of Lyons and was defined
in 1865 as an archconfraternity for this diocese. In 1873 the
confraternity at Paris was declared an archconfraternity for all
France, and in 1894 it received the right of aggregation for the
whole world. The "Archconfraternity of the Holy Hour" is also
connect